CONGRESSIONAL  SPEECHES 


OF 


JOSIAH     QUINCY. 

1805-1813. 


SPEECHES 

DELIVERED   IN   THE 

CONGRESS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

BY  JOSIAHiQUINCY, 

:  OF  REPRESENTAT 
CT  OF  MASSACHU 

1805-1813. 


MEMBEB  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  FOB  THE  SUFFOLK 
DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS, 


EDITED   BY    HIS    SON, 

EDMUND     Q  U I N  C  Y, 

FELLOW  OP  THE  AMERICAN  ACADEMT  OF  ARTS  AND   SCIENCES  ;  MEMBER  OF  THE  AMERICAN 

PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY   HELD  AT  PHILADELPHIA,   AND   OF  THE  HISTORICAL 

SOCIETIES   OF  MASSACHUSETTS  AND   NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 


BOSTON: 

LITTLE,  BROWN,  AND  COMPANY. 

1874. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1874,  by 

EDMUND    QUTNCY, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


CAMBRIDGE: 
PRESS  OF  JOHN  WILSON  AND  SON. 


PREFACE. 


SEVEN  years  ago,  —  September,  1867,  —  I  pub- 
lished a  Life  of  my  father,  which  had  a  reception 
from  the  public  of  the  most  gratifying  description, 
far  beyond  my  warmest  hopes.  Five  editions  were 
disposed  of  in  the  course  of  two  years,  and  the 
demand  has  not  yet  entirely  ceased.  This  success 
I  attribute  chiefly  to  the  interest  felt  in  my  father 
by  the  many  eminent  and  useful  men  in  all  parts  of 
the  country  who  gratefully  remembered  his  influ- 
ence on  their  characters  while  President  of  the 
University,  as  well  as  by  the  newer  generation 
who  learned  to  know  and  admire  him  from  the 
active  part  he  took  in  the  political  agitations  which 
went  before  the  Civil  War,  and  the  Emancipa- 
tion which  it  compelled.  It  was,  however,  my 
opinion  then,  as  it  is  now,  that  his  permanent  rep- 
utation, after  the  generation  that  knew  him  per- 
sonally shall  have  passed  away,  and  his  claim  to  a 
modest  place  in  the  history  of  his  country,  rest 
rather  upon  his  action  on  the  wider  scene  of 
national  politics  at  Washington,  at  a  most  inter- 
esting and  critical  period  of  our  aifairs.  I  there- 
fore made  liberal  extracts  from  his  Congressional 
Speeches  as  an  integral  and  vital  portion  of  his 


PKEFACE. 


life,  and  I  have  reason  to  think  that  these  were 
regarded  by  the  best  of  my  readers  as  adding 
largely  to  the  interest  of  the  book.  My  own 
opinion  being  thus  re-enforced,  I  venture  to  offer 
to  the  public  this  collection  of  his  Congressional 
Speeches  in  full,  hoping  that  it  may  be  regarded 
as  an  illustration,  not  without  value,  of  the  spirit 
and  temper  of  the  times  when  they  were  uttered. 

The  passage  of  history  to  which  my  father's  Con- 
gressional career  belongs,  lies  at  that  precise  dis- 
tance from  the  present  day  which  makes  its  facts 
indistinct  to  the  minds  of  all  of  our  contemporaries, 
excepting  the  daily  dwindling  number  whose  memo- 
ries go  back  to  those  times.  It  is  too  remote  for  the 
memory  of  the  mass  of  living  men,  and  not  remote 
enough  to  tempt  the  hand  of  the  philosophic  his- 
torian. The  period,  however,  from  the  inaugura- 
tion of  Washington  to  that  of  Monroe,  will  be 
found  full  of  materials  for  brilliant  treatment  by 
the  American  historian  whom  we  yet  wait  for. 
Part}7  spirit  has  never  been  so  fierce  and  malignant, 
passions  and  opinions  have  never  clashed  so  furi- 
ously, equally  honest  and  patriotic  men  have  never 
differed  more  bitterly  or  more  sincerely,  than  in 
those  far-off  days.  The  old  ideas  encountered  the 
new  ideas,  and  the  collision  shook  civil  society  to 
the  centre.  Great  men,  too,  were  called  for,  and 
appeared  upon  the  scene,  whose  figures  are  now 
but  indistinctly  discerned  through  the  mists  of 
time,  but  who  will  yet  be  displayed  in  their  just 
proportions  by  the  light  to  be  thrown  upon  them 
by  genius.  John  Jay,  Alexander  Hamilton,  Fisher 


PREFACE.  VII 

Ames,  William  Pinkney,  Samuel  Dexter,  Timothy 
Pickering,  James  A.  Bayard,  will  again  become 
the  household  words  they  were  three  quarters  of  a 
century  ago.  The  germs  of  the  union  of  the  Dem- 
ocratic party  and  the  Slave  Oligarchy,  which  gave 
the  nation  over  into  the  hands  of  the  Slave  Power 
for  more  than  half  a  century,  to  be  rescued  only  at 
the  fearful  cost  of  the  Civil  War,  will  there  be 
detected  and  displayed.  And  the  mischiefs  of  a 
doctrinaire  statesmanship  were  never  better  shown 
than  in  the  miseries  inflicted  upon  the  whole 
country,  but  especially  upon  the  Northern  Atlantic 
States,  by  the  reduction  to  legislation  of  the 
political  reveries  of  an  ideologue  like  Mr.  Jefferson, 
in  the  Embargo  and  the  Non-Intercourse  and  the 
War  of  18 T2,  in  which  these  measures  naturally 
culminated,  though  unforeseen  and  undesired  by 
their  author.  It  is  observable  that  the  interest 
and  importance  of  the  portion  of  our  national  his- 
tory with  which  these  speeches  of  Mr.  Quincy  have 
to  do,  were  more  fully  understood  and  set  forth  by 
the  London  "  Spectator,"  and  "  Pall  Mall  Gazette," 
and  the  Paris  "  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,"  all  of 
which  journals  had  able  and  elaborate  articles  on  his 
Life,  than  by  some  American  periodicals,  which 
inclined  to  regard  it  as  an  obscure  and  insignificant 
chapter  in  our  annals.  When  the  historian  of  the 
future  shall  come  to  treat  of  those  events,  the 
public  utterances  of  public  men  will  be  among  his 
best  materials  for  that  revivification  of  the  passions 
and  opinions  of  the  men  of  the  time  which  forms 
the  living  spirit  of  history.  I  trust  that  this  collec- 


yiii  PEEFACE. 

tion  will  then  be  considered  as  neither  useless  nor 
unimportant  as  expressing  the  thoughts  and  emo- 
tions which  made  up  the  inner  life  of  no  inconsid- 
erable portion  of  the  American  people. 

As  to  the  merit  of  these  Speeches  as  specimens 
of  parliamentary  oratory,  it  is  not  for  me  to  speak. 
Whatever  may  be  their  force  and  skill,  critically 
considered,  be  the  same  less  or  more,  I  know  that 
they  are  most  characteristic  of  the  man,  and  very  ex- 
pressive of  the  sentiments  and  feelings  of  the  noble 
Federal  party  to  which  he  belonged,  and  which  at 
one  time  he  led.  I  should  hardly,  however,  have 
presumed  to  collect  them  in  this  permanent  form 
had  I  not  been  encouraged  to  do  so  by  the  judg- 
ments of  men  to  which  my  own  must  bow,  and 
which  more  than  confirmed  any  estimation  I  might 
have  put  upon  them  myself.  Among  these  en- 
couraging counsellors  I  may  be  permitted  to  name 
my  valued  friends,  the  late  Senator  Sumner,  and 
Mr.  Motley,  the  historian  of  the  Dutch  Republic, 
both  of  whom  held  opinions  as  to  my  father's  rank 
among  parliamentary  orators  which  I  shall  not  ven- 
ture to  repeat,  and  which  I  cannot  but  consider  as 
heightened  in  some  degree  by  their  reverential  affec- 
tion for  his  person.  But,  all  allowances  made, 
enough  of  encouragement  remains,  given  by  judges 
so  eminent,  to  make  it  the  less  presumptuous  in  me 
to  hope  for  a  favorable  reception  for  this  collection 
from  the  small  but  enlightened  class  who  care  for 
matters  of  the  sort.  One  thing  I  may  be  per- 
mitted to  say  of  these  Speeches  of  my  father. 
They  are  his  Speeches,  as  they  came  from  his  mind 


PREFACE.  IX 

and  from  his  lips  without  amendment  or  correction 
of  mine.  Some  very  eminent  orators  of  our  time 
have  carefully  revised  and  altered  their  speeches, 
or  left  them  to  the  correction  of  their  friends,  years 
after  they  were  delivered.  Thus,  doubtless,  admi- 
rable literary  performances  have  been  secured  to 
us,  but  they  are  not  the  speeches  as  they  were 
uttered  by  the  speakers  in  the  heat  of  debate,  char- 
acteristic of  the  men  and  of  the  times,  and  perhaps 
rather  smell  of  the  lamp  than  savor  of  the  Senate- 
house.  My  father  never  cared  enough  about  the 
matter  to  do  any  thing  of  the  kind,  and  I  consider 
it  the  part  both  of  filial  duty  and  of  good  taste  to 
present  his  speeches  to  the  public  of  to-day  as  they 
were  addressed  to  the  public  of  seventy  years  since. 
I  feel  that  any  attempt  of  mine  to  improve  his  style 
would  only  impair  its  force  and  injure  its  character- 
istic qualities.  I  have  confined  myself,  therefore, 
as  editor,  to  the  correction  of  obvious  errors  of  the 
press,  or  of  the  imperfect  reporting  of  those  times, 
and  I  have  thus  endeavored  to  print  these  Speeches 
as  nearly  as  possible  as  he  spoke  them. 

I  have  ventured  to  prefix  to  each  Speech  a  short 
introduction  explaining  the  political  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  delivered.  I  judged  that  some 
elucidation  of  the  kind  would  be  useful  to  readers 
who  are  not  familiar  with  the  history  of  those 
times.  I  have  made  them  as  brief  as  is  consistent 
with  this  object. 

DEDHAM,  MASSACHUSETTS, 
November  1st,  1874. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 
Speech  on  the  Bill  for  fortifying  the  Ports  and  Harbors  of  the 

United  States.     April  15,  1806 3 

Speech  on  the  Bill  for  authorizing  the  President  to  suspend  the 
Embargo  under  certain  Circumstances.  April,  1808  ...  31 

Speech  on  the  first  Resolution  reported  by  the  Committee  on 

Foreign  Relations.     Nov.  28,  1808 53 

Second  Speech  on  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations ;  in  reply  to  the  Observations  of  Mr.  Bacon. 
Dec.  7,  1808 83 

Speech  on  the  Bill  for  raising  Fifty  Thousand  Volunteers. 
Dec.  30,  1808 Ill 

Speech  on  the  Bill  for  holding  an  Extra  Session  of  Congress  in 
May  next.  Jan.  19,  1809 129 

Speech  on  the  Resolution  of  Censure  on  Francis  J.  Jackson, 
the  British  Minister.  Dec.  28,  1809 157 

Speech  on  the  Passage  of  the  Bill  to  enable  the  People  of  the 
Territory  of  Orleans  to  form  a  Constitution  and  State  Gov- 
ernment, and  for  the  Admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union. 
Jan.  14,  1811 193 

Speech  on  the  Influence  of  Place  and  Patronage.    Jan.  30,  1811.     227 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

PAQB 

Speech  on  the  Proposition  to  revive  and  enforce  the  Non-inter- 
course Law  against  Great  Britain.     Feb.  25,  1811      .     .     .  247 

Speech  on  the  Enlistment  of  Minors.     Jan.  5,  1813.    .     .     .  277 

Speech  in  relation  to  Maritime  Protection.     Jan.  25,  1812  .     .  291 

Speech  on  the  Relief  of  Sundry  Merchants  from  Penalties  inno- 
cently incurred.     Dec.  14,  1812 331 

Speech  on  the  Invasion  of  Canada.     Jan.  5,  1813 357 


SPEECH 

ON    THE    BILL    FOR    FORTIFYING    THE    PORTS 
AND   HARBORS   OF  THE   UNITED   STATES. 

APRIL  15,  1806. 


SPEECH 

ON    THE    BILL    FOR    FORTIFYING    THE    PORTS    AND 
HARBORS    OF     THE    UNITED    STATES. 

APRIL  15,  1806. 


[THE  state  of  affairs,  domestic  and  foreign,  at  the  beginning  of 
1806  was  briefly  this.  Of  the  sympathies  and  antipathies  of  the 
Federal  and  Democratic  parties  in  relation  to  France  and  Eng- 
land, I  have  given  some  account  in  the  preface  to  this  volume. 
For  the  quarter  of  a  century,  from  the  beginning  of  the  French 
Revolution  to  the  battle  of  Waterloo,  the  hopes,  the  fears,  the 
passions,  and  the  politics  of  the  United  States  were  indissolubly 
connected  with  those  of  Europe.  We  were,  during  those  years, 
in  continual  danger  of  being  drawn  into  the  wars  which,  with 
brief  intervals  of  truce,  occupied  the  nations  of  Europe.  It  was 
against  this  peril  that  the  warning  voice  of  Washington  was 
raised  in  his  Farewell  Address  when  he  admonished  his  country- 
men to  beware  of  "  entangling  alliances "  with  foreign  powers. 
These  were  no  superfluous  words  of  caution,  and  it  is  likely  that 
it  was  our  poverty  rather  than  our  will  that  restrained  us  from 
taking  a  part,  most  disastrous  to  ourselves,  on  one  side  or  the 
other  of  those  fateful  conflicts,  according  as  sympathy  with 
France  or  with  England  had  the  ascendant  in  the  public  opinion 
of  the  time. 

Previous  to  1805,  these  wars  had  indeed  been  of  direct  benefit 
to  the  United  States.  Being  the  only  neutral  power  of  any 
maritime  importance,  the  carrying-trade  was  almost  entirely  in 
American  hands.  All  the  colonial  productions  of  France  and 


4  SPEECH   ON   FORTIFYING 

Holland  ami  of  Spain,  since  her  alliance  with  France,  were  first 
brought  to  some  American  port  and  thence  reshipped  to  the 
respective  mother  countries.  The  American  ship-owners,  thus 
having  the  advantage  of  double  freights,  carried  on  an  im- 
mensely profitable  business;  and  large  fortunes,  as  they  were 
esteemed  in  those  simple  days,  were  made  in  it.  The  English 
government  at  last  discerned  that  this  system  gave  France  the 
benefit  of  the  trade  of  her  own  colonies  and  those  of  her  allies 
almost  as  fully  as  in  time  of  peace.  So  the  Courts  of  Admiralty 
revised  the  old  doctrines  of  International  Law,  and  confiscated 
several  American  cargoes  on  the  ground  that  our  fiag  was  used 
as  the  cover  of  a  fraudulent  transaction,  the  property  having 
never  really  belonged  to  the  American  merchant,  having  been 
landed  in  the  neutral  port  merely  for  reshipment  to  a  hostile 
one. 

These  decisions,  destroying  as  they  did  a  most  lucrative  trade, 
created  great  dissatisfaction ;  and  they  were  the  beginning  of 
those  unfriendly  relations  between  the  two  countries  which 
finally  culminated  in  the  War  of  1812.  And,  although  the  neu- 
trality of  the  United  States  was  vitally  beneficial  to  France  and 
Spain,  they  could  not  resist  the  temptation  our  rich  merchant- 
vessels  offered  to  their  cruisers,  which  often  seized  them  on 
small  pretexts,  or  none  at  all,  and  thus  gave  rise  to  the  French 
and  Spanish  claims  of  our  later  history.  Besides  these  compli- 
cations, we  were  in  a  condition  of  very  dubious  friendship  with 
Spain,  which  had  then  some  remains  of  her  former  pride  and 
power.  In  1803  Bonaparte  sold  Louisiana  to  the  United  States 
under  circumstances  which  colored  our  whole  history  for  two 
generations,  and  of  which  we  shall  give  an  account  by  and  by. 
Spain  had  ceded  back  to  France,  in  1800,  this  territory  which 
she  had  received  from  that  power,  in  17G2,  in  compensation  for 
her  losses  in  the  war  which  ended  in  the  conquest  of  Canada. 
Whatever  motives  induced  this  action,  it  was  certainly  without 
the  expectation  that  tin's  territory  would  be  almost  immediately 
handed  over  to  a  growing  republic  conterminous  with  her  other 
North  American  possessions.  Had  she  been  strong  enough  it 
might  even  have  been  made  a  casus  belli.  As  it  was,  she  pro- 


THE  POETS   AND  HARBORS.  5 

tested  energetically  against  the  treaty  of  1803;  actually  occu- 
pied posts  within  our  undoubted  boundaries ;  and  her  minister, 
Irujo,  treated  President  Jefferson  with  insolent  contempt. 

Our  foreign  relations  being  in  this  queasy  condition,  .when  a 
slight  and  unforeseen  contingency  might  bring  a  fleet  upon  our 
coasts  and  into  the  harbors  of  our  cities,  it  seemed  as  if  some 
kind  of  preparation  should  be  made  against  such  a  possibility. 
Mr.  Jefferson  did  not  deny  this,  and  he  urged  the  neces- 
sity of  preparation  against  possible  hostilities.  But,  in  his 
morbid  fear  of  spending  money,  he  limited  his  suggestion  to  the 
equipping  of  gun-boats  to  lie  in  wait  for  the  enemy  and  issue 
from  their  ambush  on  his  approach,  and  to  a  classification  of  the 
militia,  by  which,  on  the  approach  of  danger,  the  younger  men 
should  forsake  the  plough  and  the  work-bench  and  rush  to  the 
rescue.  The  Federalists,  and  especially  those  representing  the 
commercial  States,  thought  these  precautions  quite  insufficient. 
As  the  commerce  of  the  country  furnished  almost  the  entire  sup- 
port of  the  government,  and  had  provided  the  fifteen  millions 
required  for  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  and  the  two  millions  for 
that  of  Florida,  they  deemed  it  but  reasonable  that  a  moderate 
proportion  of  the  money  they  supplied  should  be  spent  in  the 
fortification  of  the  Atlantic  cities.  During  the  seventeen  years 
of  our  national  existence,  only  seven  hundred  and  twenty-four 
thousand  dollars  had  been  spent  for  the  fortification  of  the  nine 
chief  commercial  cities  !  By  the  bill,  during  the  discussion  of 
which  the  following  speech  was  delivered,  one  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars  was  appropriated  for  the  defence  of  New  York, 
and  a  motion  to  substitute  five  hundred  thousand  was  treated 
with  contempt  and  received  only  twenty-seven  votes.  All  prop- 
ositions to  increase  the  amount,  or  to  leave  a  blank  sum  to  be  used 
at  the  discretion  of  the  President,  were  laughed  to  scorn.  —  ED.] 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  Gentlemen  seem  disposed  to  treat 
this  subject  lightly,  and  to  indulge  themselves  in  pleas- 
antries, on  a  question  very  serious  to  the  commercial 
cities  and  to  the  interest  of  those  who  inhabit  them.  It 


6  SPEECH   ON   FORTIFYING 

may  be  sport  to  you,  gentlemen,  but  it  is  death  to  us. 
However  well  disposed  a  majority  of  this  House  may  be 
to  treat  this  bill  ludicrously,  it  will  fill  great  and  influ- 
ential portions  of  this  nation  with  very  different  senti- 
ments. Men,  who  have  all  that  human  nature  holds 
clear  —  friends,  fortunes,  and  families  —  concentrated  in 
one  single  spot  on  the  sea-coast,  and  that  spot  exposed 
every  moment  to  be  plundered  and  desolated,  will  not 
highly  relish  or  prize  at  an  extreme  value,  the  wit  or 
the  levity,  with  which  this  House  seems  inclined  to 
treat  the  dangers  which  threaten  them ;  and  which  are 
sources  to  them  of  great  and  just  apprehensions.  I  do 
not  rise,  Mr.  Chairman,  merely  to  support  the  motion 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  New  York.  It  is  not  the 
fortification  of  this  or  that  particular  city  which  I  mean 
to  advocate.  I  should  have  preferred  a  general  appro- 
priation, leaving  it  to  the  discretion  of  the  executive  to 
apply  it  to  those  ports  and  harbors  which  are  either 
most  exposed  or  most  important.  And  if,  by  any  thing 
that  shall  occur  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  the 
House  shall  be  induced  to  change  what  at  present 
seems  to  be  its  disposition,  I  hope  the  augmented  ap- 
propriation will  be  made  in  that  form.  It  is  to  the 
general  duty  which  is  incumbent  upon  this  legislature 
to  protect  the  commercial  cities,  that  I  would  call  its 
attention.  This  duty  is  so  plain  and  imperious,  that,  in 
my  opinion,  an  awful  weight  of  responsibility  rests  upon 
this  House.  Every  class  and  collection  of  citizens  have 
a  right  to  claim  from  government  that  species  of  pro- 
tection which  their  situation  requires,  in  proportion  to 
their  exposure,  and  to  the  greatness  of  the  stake  which 
society  has  in  their  safety.  Our  obligation  to  protect 


THE  PORTS   AND   HARBORS.  7 

the  commercial  cities  does  not  result  from  the  particular 
exigency  which  at  present  impends  over  our  nation, 
but  from  the  nature  of  those  cities.  The  duty  is  perma- 
nent and  ought  to  be  fulfilled  by  a  permanent  system. 
A  regular  course  of  annual  appropriations  may  in  a  very 
few  years  put  all  our  capital  cities  in  a  state  of  reason- 
able security,  and,  at  no  very  distant  period  of  time, 
without  any  additional  imposition  on  the  people,  give 
every  city  on  our  coast  an  adequate  defence.  It  is  in 
this  light  that  I  consider  the  question  now  before  the 
committee  to  be  important.  Not  that  any  sum  which 
may  be  inserted  will  be  immediately  sufficient  for  all 
the  objects  for  which  we  have  to  provide.  But  that 
any  augmentation  of  the  appropriation  will  be  a  pledge 
to  the  nation  of  the  disposition  of  this  House  to  com- 
mence a  system  of  defence  for  our  cities  :  any  evidence 
of  which  will  give  just  satisfaction,  to  great  masses  of 
your  citizens,  as  an  appearance  of  a  want  of  it  will  fill 
them  with  no  less  discontent  and  dismay.  In  this  point 
of  view  I  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  committee  to  a  few 
observations  on  the  importance  of  fortifications,  their 
utility  and  practicability. 

As  to  the  importance  of  the  objects  for  which  we 
ask  a  defence,  it  seems  to  me  either  not  understood  or 
not  realized.  Almost  all  who  have  spoken  on  the  sub- 
ject have  dwelt  chiefly,  if  not  altogether,  on  the  amount 
of  revenue  drawn  from  the  commercial  cities ;  as  if  their 
value  was  to  be  appreciated,  and  our  duty  to  defend 
them  measured,  by  the  annual  produce  they  yield. 
This,  it  is  true,  makes  a  natural  part  of  the  estimate  of 
their  worth,  but,  as  I  apprehend,  by  no  means  the  most 
important.  Their  situation,  the  number  of  the  inhab- 


8  SPEECH  ON  FORTIFYING 

itants,  the  great  portion  of  the  active  and  fixed  capital 
of  society  which  they  contain,  are,  in  a  national  view, 
standards  much  more  just  and  more  elevated  by  which 
to  ascertain  their  value  and  our  obligations.  I  ask,  sir, 
what  is  the  amount  of  the  capital  of  this  nation  which 
is  invested  in  the  single  city  of  New  York  ?  The 
annual  product  it  yields  to  our  revenue  is  three  mil- 
lions of  dollars.  Now  suppose  the  average  of  import 
duties  is  only  ten  per  cent  ad  valorem  (a  sum  certainly 
below  the  real  average),  the  annual  amount  of  capital 
deposited  in  imports  is  then  thirty  millions  of  dollars. 
The  amount  of  value  in  exports  cannot  be  estimated  at 
less  than  twenty  millions.  If  to  these  be  added  the 
capital  of  its  banks,  the  amount  of  stock  always  on  hand, 
that  of  its  shipping  and  other  personal  property,  —  all  of 
which  no  one  can  rate  below  another  fifty  millions,  —  the 
result  is  that  there  is  in  annual  deposit,  within  the  city 
of  New  York  alone,  one  hundred  millions  of  the  active 
capital  of  this  nation.  I  know  how  far  this  is  below  the 
real  estimate,  but  I  state  this  sum  that  no  one  may  hesi- 
tate to  admit  my  position.  I  ask,  then,  what  is  it  worth 
to  insure  this  sum  against  the  risk  of  an  invasion,  not 
on  calculations  on  the  great  national  scale,  but  on  a 
mere  insurance-office  arithmetic?  I  have  been  told  that 
to  insure  that  city  against  such  a  risk,  for  one  single 
year  of  war  with  any  of  the  great  maritime  nations  of 
Europe,  would  be  worth  five  per  cent.  That  is  the  in- 
surance for  a  single  year  of  war  would  repay  the  expense 
of  fortifications,  even  should  they  cost  five  millions  of  dol- 
lars. But,  suppose  this  calculation  extravagant,  can  any 
one  doubt  that  such  an  insurance  in  time  of  peace, 
against  the  double  risk  of  Avar  and  of  attack  in  case  of 


THE   PORTS   AND  HARBORS. 

war,  is  worth  one-half  per  cent?  Even  at  this  premium, 
six  years  of  insurance  in  time  of  peace  would  repay 
the  expenditure  of  three  millions,  —  a  sum  more  than 
adequate  to  the  defence  of  that  city.  In  making  this 
statement,  I  .would  not  be  understood  to  pretend  or  to 
propose  such  an  appropriation  :  it  is  not  asked.  My 
object  is  to  call  gentlemen  to  consider  what  is  the  mar- 
ket worth  of  security,  and  that  they  may  not  deem  the 
moneys  they  apply  to  these  objects  —  as  they  seem  will- 
ing to  deem  them  —  absolutely  thrown  away.  This 
great  mass  of  the  national  wealth,  thus  concentrated 
on  the  bank  of  one  of  the  most  exposed  harbors  in 
the  world,  is  liable  to  the  insult  and  depredation  of 
the  most  despicable  force.  Two  seventy-four  gun- 
ships  may,  at  this  moment,  lay  that  city  under  contribu- 
tion or  in  ashes  with  impunity.  They  might  make  it 
the  interest  of  the  inhabitants  of  that  city  to  pay  an 
amount  equal  to  the  whole  annual  revenue  we  derive 
from  it,  rather  than  to  submit  to  the  hazard  and  mis- 
eries of  bombardment  and  conflagration.  For  in  such 
case  the  mere  destruction  of  property  is  but  an  item  in 
the  account  of  anticipated  misfortune.  The  shock  to 
credit ;  the  universal  stagnation  of  business ;  the  terror 
spread  through  every  class,  age,  and  sex ;  the  thousands 
who  have  no  refuge  in  the  country,  but  must  take  the 
fate,  and  be  buried  under  the  ruins,  of  their  city,  —  all 
these  circumstances  would  enter  into  consideration,  and 
make  the  pecuniary  sacrifice,  however  great,  appear 
trifling  in  'comparison.  I  have  used  the  city  of  New 
York  only  by  way  of  example.  The  same  observations 
are  applicable  to  every  other  commercial  city  in  the 
United  States  in  proportion  to  its  magnitude  and  the 


10  SPEECH   OX  FORTIFYING 

nature  of  its  situation.  Two  seventy-fours  might  sweep 
the  coast  from  Savannah  to  Portland,  and  levy  an 
amount  equal  to  the  whole  annual  revenue  of  the 
United  States.  It  would  be  better  for  any  city  volun- 
tarily to  pay  a  contribution  equal  to  its  proportion  of 
that  amount,  rather  than  to  take  the  alternative  of  that 
destruction  to  which,  on  refusal,  it  would  be  obliged  to 
submit.  Is  such  a  state  of  things  as  this  a  light  and 
trifling  concern  ?  Are  such  portions  of  the  wealth  of 
the  community  to  be  left  exposed  to  the  caprice  of 
every  plunderer ;  and  are  propositions  to  protect  them 
to  be  treated  with  contempt  or  ridicule?  Can  any  duty 
be  more  solemn  or  imperious  than  that  which  has  for  its 
object  a  rational  degree  of  security  for  those  ports  in 
the  United  States  which  are  beyond  all  others  exposed 
to  hostile  attack,  at  the  same  time  that  they  comprise, 
within  the  smallest  possible  compass,  immense  masses 
of  the  national  wealth  and  population  ? 

The  importance,  then,  of  the  objects  to  be  defended 
will  be  admitted.  But  the  utility  of  fortifications,  as  a 
means  of  defence,  and  their  practicability  in  certain 
ports  and  harbors,  are  denied.  With  respect  to  the  gen- 
eral utility  of  fortifications,  I  ask,  by  whom  is  it  denied  ? 
By  men  interested  in  that  species  of  defence  ?  By  the 
inhabitants  of  cities  ?  By  those  the  necessity  of  whose 
situation  has  turned  their  attention  to  the  nature  of 
fortifications  and  their  efficacy  ?  No,  sir :  these  men 
solicit  them.  They  are  anxious  for  nothing  so  much. 
They  tell  you,  the  safety  of  all  they  hold  dear,  —  their 
wives,  their  children,  their  fortunes,  and  lives  are  staked 
upon  your  decision.  They  do  not  so  much  as  ask  for- 
tifications as  a  favor :  they  claim  them  as  a  right.  They 


THE    PORTS   AND   HAKBOKS.  11 

demand  them.  Who  are  they,  then,  that  deny  their 
utility?  Why,  men  from  the  interior.  Men  who 
in  one  breath  tell  you  they  know  nothing  about  the 
subject,  and  in  the  next  pass  judgment  against  the  adop- 
tion of  any  measures  of  defence.  It  is  true,  sir,  to  men 
who  inhabit  the  White  Hills  of  New  Hampshire,  or  the 
Blue  Ridge  of  Virginia,  nothing  can  appear  more  abso- 
lutely useless  than  appropriations  for  the  defence  of  the 
sea-coast.  In  this,  as  in  all  other  cases,  men  reason 
very  coolly  and  philosophically  concerning  dangers  to 
which  they  are  not  themselves  subject.  All  men,  for 
the  most  part,  bear  with  wonderful  composure  the  mis- 
fortunes of  other  people.  And,  if  called  to  contribute 
to  their  relief,  they  are  sure  to  find,  in  the  cold  sugges- 
tions of  economy,  apologies  enough  for  failure  in  their 
social  duties.  The  best  criterion  of  the  utility  of  forti- 
fications is  the  practice  and  experience  of  other  nations. 
Now,  I  ask,  was  there  ever  a  nation  which  did  not 
defend  its  great  commercial  deposits,  by  either  land 
fortifications  or  sea  batteries?  All  history  does  not 
exhibit  such  an  instance.  Are  we  wiser,  then,  than  all 
other  nations  ;  or  are  we  less  exposed  than  they  ?  Are 
we  alone  to  escape  the  common  lot  of  humanity  ?  Can 
we  expect  to  be  rich,  and  not  tempt  the  spirit  of  ava- 
rice ?  To  be  defenceless  amid  armed  pirates,  and  in  no 
danger  of  robbery  or  insult  ?  I  ask  again,  sir,  how  is 
the  inutility  of  fortifications  proved  ?  Suppose,  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  it  should  be  admitted  —  which,  how- 
ever, I  deny  —  that  they  cannot  be  erected  in  sufficient 
force  to  defeat  very  great  armaments  ;  yet  is  it  nothing  to 
prevent  £he  piratical  attempts  of  single  ships?  Is  it 
nothing  to  deter  an  invader  ?  Nothing  even  to  delay  an 


12  SPEECH   OX   FORTIFYING 

attack?  Is  it  worth  nothing  to  have  the  chance  of 
crippling  an  assailant?  The  only  argument  I  have 
heard  urged  against  the  utility  of  fortifications  is,  that 
the  whole  coast  cannot  be  fortified  ;  so  that,  protect  as 
stronglv  as  you  will  particular  points,  the  invader  will 
land  somewhere  else.  Sir,  this  is  the  very  object  of 
fortifications.  No  man  ever  thought  of  building  a  Chi- 
nese wall  along  all  the  indentations  of  our  shore,  from 
the  St.  Mary's  to  the  St.  Croix.  The  true  object  of 
fortifications  is  to  oblige  your  enemies  to  land  :  it  is  to 
keep  them  at  arm's  length.  If  they  cannot  reach  your 
cities  with  their  batteries,  and  would  attack,  they  must 
come  on  shore.  They  are  then  only  a  land  force,  and 
our  militia  will  find  no  difficulty  in  giving  a  good 
account  of  them.  The  only  remaining  arguments  in  the 
possession  of  this  House,  against  the  utility  of  fortifica- 
tions, are  the  opinions  of  various  gentlemen,  delivered 
on  this  floor ;  and  that  of  the  secretary  at  war,  as  stated 
in  his  report.  As  to  the  former,  they  certainly  do  not 
merit  a  serious  refutation,  because  no  gentleman  who 
has  spoken  has  pretended  to  a  practical  or  even  theo- 
retical knowledge  of  the  subject ;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
most,  if  not  all  of  them,  have  candidly  confessed  their 
ignorance.  It  is  of  more  importance  to  consider  the 
opinion  of  the  secretary  at  war.  That  part  of  his 
report  which  relates  to  the  harbor  of  New  York  con- 
tains his  general  opinion  against  the  practicability  of 
defending  such  a  harbor  by  land  batteries,  and  two 
facts  in  support  of  that  opinion.  Now,  as  to  the  gen- 
eral opinion  of  the  secretary,  I  am  willing  to  allow  it 
whatever  weight  any  gentleman  may  choose  to  attach 
to  it  ;  but  certainly  it  ought  not  to  be  conclusive  in  an 


THE   POETS  AND   HARBORS.  13 

affair  of  such  immense  importance  ;  especially  when  it 
is  contradicted  by  the  tenor  of  the  applications  on  your 
table,  and  by  the  opinions  of  other  individuals  of  as 
high  militar}^  and  scientific  reputation  as  the  secretary. 
Much  less  does  this  his  opinion  claim  from  us  an  implicit 
confidence ;  since  the  only  two  facts  he  has  chosen  to 
adduce  are  very  far  from  being  a  sufficient  basis  for  the 
broad  opinion  he  has  built  on  them.  The  first  fact  is 
one  which  occurred  in  the  harbor  of  New  York  in 
1776.  A  British  ship  of  forty  guns  passed  the  batteries 
on  the  Hudson,  under  circumstances  favorable  to  the 
effect  of  the  batteries,  and  sustained  "  a  tremendous 
fire  "  without  being  sensibly  "  incommoded."  Allowing 
this  fact  its  full  force,  it  can  weigh  but  little  against  the 
utility  or  practicability  of  fortifications.  That  was  the 
second  year  of  the  war.  Our  batteries  were  erected  on 
a  sudden  emergency.  Our  artillerists  had  probably 
little  experience.  Will  it  be  pretended  that  the  bat- 
teries this  nation,  in  its  present  state  of  affluence  and 
experience  can  erect,  will  not  exceed,  both  in  location 
and  power,  those  which  at  that  time  protected  the 
Hudson  ?  Besides,  to  draw  from  a  particular  instance 
a  general  conclusion  is  contrary  to  all  rules  of  just 
logic.  Various  circumstances,  altogether  accidental, 
might  have  occurred  to  have  produced  that  result, 
which  might  never  occur  again.  If  this  instance  be  a 
good  argument  against  the  validity  of  land  fortifications, 
there  is  an  equally  strong  argument  in  the  history  of 
our  revolution  against  the  fashionable  mode  of  defence 
by  gun-boats.  I  take  the  fact  only  from  verbal  infor- 
mation ;  and,  if  I  am  incorrect,  there  are  gentlemen  on 
this  floor  who  can  set  me  right.  During  the  war,  a 


14  SPEECH   ON   FORTIFYING 

British  frigate  of  forty-four  guns,  called  the  "  Roebuck," 
took  ground  in  the  DelaAvare  ;  and  though  we  had  gun- 
boats quantum  sufficit,  who  pelted  her  to  their  hearts'  con- 
tent, during  one  whole  tide,  she  received  no  manner  of 
injury,  tit  least  none  of  any  importance.  If  I  have  this 
fact  correctly,  it  is  just  as  strong  against  the  efficacy  of 
gun-boats  as  that  produced  by  the  secretary  is  against 
land  batteries.  One  word  here  concerning  this  mode  of 
defence  by  gun-boats,  which  seems  to  concentrate  all 
the  naval  affections  of  our  rulers,  and  to  have  on  freight 
all  their  military  hopes.  It  is  not  denied  that  these  are 
weapons  of  considerable  effect ;  or  that  in  certain  situa- 
tions they  are  useful ;  or  that,  in  aid  of  other  and  heavier 
batteries,  they  may  not  sometimes  be  important.  It  is 
only  when  they  become  the  favorites,  to  the  total  exclu- 
sion of  more  powerful  modes  of  defence,  and  draw 
away  to  the  less  power  appropriations  which  are  want- 
ing for  the  greater,  that  the  system  which  upholds 
them  becomes  an  object  of  contempt  or  of  dread. 
Nowadays,  sir,  put  what  you  will  into  the  crucible,  — 
whether  it  be  seventy-fours,  or  frigates,  or  land  batteries, 
—  the  result  is  the  same  :  after  due  swelterinc:  in  the  lee- 

O  o 

islative  furnace,  there  comes  out  nothing  but  gun-boats. 
I  ask  if  our  cities  are  attacked  by  any  maritime  nation, 
will  it  not  be  by  line-of-battle  ships ;  and  who  ever 
heard  that  a  line-of-battle  ship  was  defeated  by  gun- 
boats ?  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  learned  in  these  matters  ; 
but,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  gain  information,  it  is, 
that  when  there  is  any  thing  of  a  heavy  sea,  even  such 
as  is  often  in  the  harbor  of  New  York,  gun-boats  are  of 
very  little  efficacy.  It  is  true,  in  case  of  a  calm,  if  they 
can  get  their  object  at  rest  they  have  a  great  advantage  ; 


THE   PORTS   AND   HARBORS.  15 

that  is,  if  you  can  get  the  bird  to  stand  still  until  you 
can  put  salt  upon  its  tail,  you  can  catch  the  bird.  But 
the  worst  of  it  is,  that  it  is  too  cunning  for  that.  The 
ship  of  the  line  chooses  its  own  time  for  the  attack,  and 
will  always  select  that  which  is  least  favorable  to  its 
adversary. 

But  to  return  to  the  report  of  the  secretary  at  war. 
The  next  fact  it  states  is  the  battle  of  Copenhagen. 
Now  if  this  be  adduced  merely  as  an  evidence  of  a  par- 
ticular instance  of  the  inefficacy  of  land  batteries,  I  do 
not  think  it  important  enough  to  take  the  time  to 
examine.  The  true  question  is  not  whether  New  York 
can  be  defended  in  a  particular  way,  but  whether  it  is 
capable  of  defence  at  all,  by  combining  land  with  float- 
ing batteries.  In  this  point  of  view,  the  instance 
adduced  by  the  secretary  is  perhaps  the  most  memora- 
ble on  record,  and  the  one,  of  all  others,  in  which  those 
who  advocate  a  defence  of  our  commercial  cities  ought 
to  exult  as  in  an  incontrovertible  evidence  of  the  truth 
of  their  system.  What  was  the  fact  ?  One  of  the  best 
appointed  naval  armaments  of  the  most  powerful  mar- 
itime nation  in  the  world,  under  her  most  favored  and 
fortunate  commander,  was  sent  to  attack  Copenhagen. 
The  Danes  were  taken  by  surprise.  Every  thing, 
apparently,  was  in  favor  of  the  assailant  and  against 
those  who  acted  on  the  defensive.  To  fifteen  line-of- 
battle  ships,  the  Danes  had  nothing  to  oppose  but  their 
land  and  harbor  batteries,  fortifications,  and  block  ships. 
And  what  was  the  result?  Why  that,  after  a  most 
bloody  and  well-contested  battle,  the  British  first  asked 
a  truce.  To  this  day  the  Danes  claim  the  victory. 
Olfort  Fischer,  the  Danish  commander,  in  his  official 


16  SPEECH   ON   FOKTIFTING 

statement  of  the  battle,  declares  that,  before  the  flag 
of  truce  was  offered,  two  of  the  British  ships  of  the 
line  had  struck  their  colors,  and  that  for  some  time  their 
whole  line  was  so  weakened  that  it  fired  only  single 
guns.  Intelligent  Europeans  assert,  and  even  candid 
Englishmen  will  allow,  that,  if  ever  Nelson  was  beaten, 
it  was  on  that  occasion.  But  suppose  all  this  to  be 
erroneous.  Suppose  that  Nelson  obtained  a  real  victory, 
does  it  thence  result  that  the  fortifications  and  the 
block  ships  with  which  Copenhagen  was  defended  were 
useless  ?  By  no  means.  Still  that  battle  is  an  illustri- 
ous and  irrefragable  instance  of  their  utility.  It  is  a 
fact  on  record,  worth  a  million  theories,  in  favor  of  the 
efficacy  of  a  harbor  defence  against  a  maritime  force. 
Sir,  the  end  for  which  those  batteries  were  erected  is 
attained.  Copenhagen  is  defended.  The  storm  which 
would  have  desolated  the  city  has  spent  its  force  on  the 
artificial  shield.  Let  gentlemen  calculate  the  probable 
cost  of  those  batteries,  and  suppose  by  expending  a 
similar  sum  in  the  harbor  of  New  York,  that  city  mi<rht 

»/  o 

be  defended  as  Copenhagen  was  and  from  a  like  danger. 
Is  there  a  man  that  can  hesitate  as  to  the  wisdom  of 
such  an  expenditure  ?  Sir,  the  city  of  Copenhagen  on 
that  day  was  preserved  from  a  devastation  which  the 
cost  of  twenty  such  batteries  would  not  have  repaired. 
I  conclude,  then,  that  our  commercial  cities  can  be 
defended,  even  the  most  exposed  of  them :  land  bat- 
teries combined  with  harbor  batteries  are  equal  to  the 
object.  To  this  question  of  practicability,  concerning 
which  so  much  is  said,  I  humbly  conceive  this  not 
the  place  where  it  ought  to  be  decided.  It  belongs 
to  the  executive.  That  is  the  proper  department  to 


THE   POETS   AND  HAEBOES.  17 

examine  into  it.  Our  duty  is  to  make  the  appro- 
priations, to  show  at  least  a  disposition  to  defend. 
If  New  York  cannot  be  defended,  is  it  the  same  case 
with  Charleston,  Savannah,  or  Norfolk  ?  Shall  we  leave 
the  whole  defenceless,  because  a  particular  part  is  vul- 
nerable ?  Sir,  let  us  confess  the  truth.  The  limit  of 
our  power  to  defend  is  not  in  the  nature  of  the  cities, 
but  in  our  disposition  to  appropriate.  Not  in  the  ineffi- 
cacy  of  land  or  harbor  batteries,  but  in  our  insensibility 
to  the  danger  of  the  commercial  cities  and  unwilling- 
ness to  make  the  pecuniary  sacrifices  their  protection 
requires.  On  all  sides  we  are  met  with  the  objection, 
"  Where  are  the  means  ?  "  "  How  is  the  public  debt 
to  be  discharged,  if  we  incur  such  an  expense  ?  "  Mr. 
Chairman,  none  of  these  difficulties  are  insurmountable, 
when  southern  land  is  to  be  purchased,  or  when  our  new 
territories  on  the  Missouri  and  Red  River  are  to  be  ex- 
plored, or  when  Indian  titles  in  the  western  country  are 
to  be  extinguished.  We  have  paid  within  these  two  years 
fifteen  millions  of  dollars  for  Louisiana,  and  have  sent 
off  two  millions  more  to  purchase  the  Floridas.  I  ask 
on  what  principle  can  either  of  these  purchases  be 
made  palatable  to  the  people  of  the  United  States? 
Do  they  want  more  land  or  wider  dominions?  On 
neither  of  these  considerations  would  they  for  one 
moment  have  submitted  to  either  purchase.  It  was 
because  the  possession  of  the  Mississippi  through  its 
whole  course  was  essential  to  the  security  and  happiness 
of  our  brethren  beyond  the  mountains,  that  the  pur- 
chase of  Louisiana  was  sanctioned  by  public  opinion, 
and  if  ever  that  of  the  Floridas  receives  the  acquies- 
cence of  the  people,  it  will  only  be  from  the  conviction 


18  SPEECH   OX  FORTIFYING 

that  the  possession  of  those  countries  is   necessary  for 
the  tranquillity  of  our  southern  frontier.     All  this  we 
have  done  for  the  security  of  the  south  and  west :   we 
now  ask  for  reciprocity;   grant  us  something  for  the 
security  of  the  north  and  east.     Let  not  the  people  see 
that  all  the  incomes  proceed  from  one  quarter  of  the 
Union,  and  all  the  expenditures  are  made  in  another. 
Let  them  not  learn  from  experience,  that  the  ball  of 
favoritism  and  that  of  empire  is  travelling    south  and 
west.     I  ask,  what  are  the  Floridas,  or  what  is  Louisi- 
ana, in  comparison  with  the  single  city  of  New  York  ? 
This  city  alone  is  worth  forty  Louisianas.     Yet  when 
Louisiana  was  purchased,  did  the  increase  of  the  public 
debt  prevent  the  bargain?    Or,  later,  was  the  question 
of  "  means  "  an  obstacle  to  the  appropriation  for  the 
Floridas?     The  seventeen  millions  of  dollars  thus  ex- 
pended for  the  security  of  the  south  would  have  put 
every  commercial  city  of  the  United  States  into  a  com- 
plete state  of  defence.     I  do  not,  Mr.  Chairman,  intro- 
duce the  purchase  of  Louisiana  and  the  Floridas  in  this 
connection  lightly,  or  without  antecedent  reflection :  I 
would  hold  up  to  this  house  a  mirror  in  which  it  may 
contemplate    itself   and    see    its   own    features.     It   is 
impossible  not  to  remark  that  the  sympathies  of  the 
majority  of  this  legislature  do  not  extend  to  the  sea- 
coast.     But  whatever  will  meliorate  the  condition  of 
the  interior  excites  all  its  sensibilities  and  awakens  all 
its   anxieties.     Look   at   this  moment  on   your   table: 
there  are  now  no  less  than  four,  I  believe  five,  Indian 
treaties  which  haVe  been  ratified   the  present  session, 
the  appropriations  for  which  occasion  no  •alarm  about 
the  public  faith  or  the  public  purse.     It  is  worth  our 


THE   POETS   AND   HARBORS.  19 

while  to  notice  the  particulars.     By  these  treaties  the 
United  States  agree  to  pay :  — 

First,  cash  down $37,600 

Next,  the  following  annuities  :  — 

$1,600  for  ten  years 16,000 

$12,000  for  eight  years 96,000 

$11,000  for  ten  years 110,000 


$•259,600 

In  addition  to  which  we  are  to  pay  other  annuities, 
amounting  to  $4,000  for  ever.  These  last  cannot  be 
estimated  at  less  in  any  market  than  $50,000,  but 
which  I  rate  onty  at 40,000 


$300,000 

Besides  which,  our  appropriation  for  the  Indian  de- 
partment and  for  the  support  of  the  civil  government 
of  Louisiana,  and  our  other  south-western  territory, 
exceed 150,000 


$450,000 

Thus  in  this  single  session  we  shall  have  appropriated 
four  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars,  for  the  security 
and  protection  of  the  south-west.  But  for  our  ports 
and  harbors,  an  appropriation  of  one  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars  for  the  mere  repair  of  old  fortifications 
is  thought  to  be  an  enormous  expenditure.  Even  this 
is  violently  opposed.  But  any  additional  sum  to  begin 
new  works  is  not  only  hopeless,  but  cannot  even  be 
named  without  exciting  a  smile  of  contempt. 

Now  let  us  look  at  the  other  side  of  the  account.  It 
will  be  found,  by  the  report  on  your  table,  that  the 
nine  capital  cities  of  the  Union  —  Portland,  Portsmouth. 


20  SPEECH   ON   FORTIFYING 

Boston,  Newport,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore, 
Norfolk,  and  Charleston  —  have  had  expended  in  fortifi- 
cations for  their  defence,  since  the  establishment  of  the 
federal  government,  only  seven  hundred  and  twenty-four 
thousand  dollars !  That  is  to  say,  your  appropriations 
in  one  session,  for  the  security  and  comfort  of  the  south- 
west, is  more  than  half  the  whole  amount  expended 
during  sixteen  years  for  the  security  of  all  these  great 
commercial  cities,  which  contain  two  or  three  hundred 
thousand  inhabitants,  and  which  paid  into  your  treasury 
the  last  year  upwards  of  nine  millions  of  dollars  !  It  is 
impossible  that  this  state  of  things  should  not  be  under- 
stood and  realized  by  the  people  of  these  States ;  and 
that  at  no  very  distant  period.  It  requires  only  some 
actual  suffering,  some  real  misfortune,  resulting  from 
your  ill-timed  parsimony  or  misplaced  affections,  to 
rouse  a  spirit  in  the  commercial  States  which  will  shake 
this  Union  to  its  foundation.  Of  all  times  those  will  be 
the  most  dreadful  and  the  most  to  be  deprecated  by 
every  real  lover  of  his  country,  when  the  party  passions 
shall  run  parallel  to  local  interests.  Whenever  any 
great  section  of  the  Union  shall  deem  itself  neglected, 
and  the  opinion  becomes  general  among  the  people  that 
they  are  either  sacrificed  or  abandoned,  that  they  have 
not  any,  or»not  their  just,  weight  in  the  national  scale,  a 
series  of  struggles  must  commence,  which  will  terminate 
either  in  redress  or  in  convulsions.  Events  of  this  kind 
are  not  to  be  prevented  by  common-place  declamation 
about  submission  to  the  will  of  the  majority.  A  real 
reciprocity  must  exist.  Intelligent  men  must  see  and 
feel  that  a  regard,  proportionate  to  their  real  interest  at 
stake  in  the  society,  is  entertained  for  them  by  their 


THE  PORTS   AND  HARBORS.  21 

rulers.  With  such  perception  and  experience  your 
Union  is  a  bond  of  adamant  which  nothing  can  break. 
Without  them,  I  will  not  say  it  will  be  dissolved,  but 
this  I  will  say,  —  it  cannot  be  happy,  even  if  it  should 
be  lasting. 

It  is  impossible  to  form  a  just  estimate  of  our  obliga- 
tions to  defend  the  commercial  cities,  without  having  a 
right  idea  of  the  nature  and  importance  of  commerce  to 
the  eastern  States,  and  attaining  a  just  apprehension  of 
its  influence  over  every  class  of  citizens  in  that  quarter 
of  the  Union.  From  what  has  fallen  from  various  gen- 
tlemen in  the  House,  it  is  very  apparent  that  they  do 
not  appreciate  either  its  nature,  its  power,  or  the  duties 
which  result  from  our  relation  to  those  who  are  engaged 
in  that  pursuit.  The  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  J. 
Randolph)  told  us  the  other  day,  that  "  the  United 
States  was  a  great  land  animal,  a  great  mammoth, 
which  ought  to  cleave  to  the  land,  and  not  wade  out 
into  the  ocean  to  fight  the  shark."  Sir,  the  figure  is  very 
happy  so  far  as  relates  to  that  quarter  of  the  Union 
with  which  that  gentleman  is  chiefly  conversant.  Of 
the  southern  States,  the  mammoth  is  a  correct  type. 
But  I  ask,  sir,  suppose  the  mammoth  has  made  a  league 
with  the  cod,  and  that  the  cod,  enterprising,  active,  and 
skilful,  spreads  himself  over  every  ocean,  and  brings 
back  the  tribute  of  all  climes  to  the  feet  of  the  mam- 
moth ;  suppose  he  thereby  enables  the  unwieldy  animal 
to  stretch  his  huge  limbs  upon  cotton,  or  to  rub  his  fat 
sides  along  his  tobacco  plantations,  without  paying  the 
tithe  of  a  hair,  —  in  such  case,  is  it  wise,  is  it  honorable, 
is  it  politic,  for  that  mammoth,  because  by  mere  beef 
and  bone  he  outweighs  the  cod  in  the  political  scale,  to 


22  SPEECH   ON   FORTIFYING 

refuse  a  portion  of  that  revenue  which  the  industry  of 
the  cod  annually  produces,  to  defend  him  in  his  natural 
element ;  if  not  against  the  great  leviathan  of  the  deep, 
at  least  against  the  petty  pikes  which  prowl  on  the 
ocean ;  and  if  not  in  the  whole  course  of  his  advent- 
urous progress,  at  least  in  his  native  bays  and  harbors, 
where  his  hopes  and  wealth  are  deposited  and  where  his 
species  congregate  ? 

Other  gentlemen  have  shown  an  equal  want  of  a  just 
apprehension  of  the  nature  and  effects  of  commerce. 
Some  think  any  of  its  great  channels  can  be  impeded  or 
cut  off  without  important  injury.  Others  that  it  is  a 
matter  of  so  much  indifference  that  we  can  very  well  do 
without  it.  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr. 
Smilie)  told  us  some  days  since,  "  that  for  his  part  he 
wished  that  at  the  time  of  our  Revolution  there  had  been 
no  commerce."  That  honorable  gentleman,  I  presume, 
is  enamoured  with  Arcadian  scenes,  with  happy  valleys. 
Like  a  hero  of  pastoral  romance  at  the  head  of  some 
murmuring  stream,  with  his  crook  by  his  side,  his  sheep 
feeding  around,  far  from  the  temptations,  unseduced  by 
the  luxuries  of  commerce,  he  would 

.  .  .  "sport  with  Amaryllis  in  the  shade, 
Or  \vitl\  Hie  tangles  of  Neiera's  hair." 

I  will  not  deny  that  these  are  pleasant  scenes.  Doubt- 
less they  are  well  suited  to  the  innocence,  the  purity, 
and  the  amiable  unobtrusive  simplicity  of  that  gentle- 
man's mind  and  manners.  But  he  must  not  expect  that 
all  men  can  be  measured  by  his  elevated  standard,  or 
be  made  to  relish  these  sublime  pleasures.  Thousands 
and  ten  thousands  in  that  part  of  the  country  I  would 


THE   PORTS    AND   HARBORS.  23 

represent  have  no  notion  of  rural  felicity,  or  of  the  tran- 
quil joys  of  the  country.  They  love  a  life  of  activity, 
of  enterprise,  and  hazard.  They  would  rather  see  a 
boat-hook  than  all  the  crooks  in  the  world  ;  and  as  for 
sheep,  they  never  desire  to  see  any  thing  more  of  them 
than  just  enough  upon  their  deck  to  give  them  fresh 
meat  once  a  week  in  a  voyage.  Concerning  the  land  of 
which  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  J.  Randolph), 
and  the  one  from  North  Carolina  (Mr.  Macon),  think 
so  much,  they  think  very  little.  It  is  in  fact  to  them 
only  a  shelter  from  the  storm  ;  a  perch  on  which  they 
build  their  aerie  and  hide  their  mate  and  their  young, 
while  they  skim  the  surface  or  hunt  in  the  deep.  The 
laws  of  society  and  the  views  of  enlightened  politicians 
ought  to  have  reference,  not  to  any  ideal,  theoretic  state 
of  human  perfection,  but  to  the  equal  protection  and 
encouragement  of  every  species  of  honorable  industry. 
I  know  it  has  been  said  by  way  of  apology  for  not  doing 
any  thing  more  in  defence  of  commerce,  that  it  already 
was  indebted  for  its  prosperity  to  our  laws  and  regula- 
tions. The  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  J.  Ran- 
dolph) told  us  expressly  "  that  the  votes  of  southern 
men  had  given  us  our  drawbacks  and  discriminating 
duties,"  whence  he  would  conclude  that  our  commerce 
and  navigation  had  nothing  more  to  ask  at  their  hands. 
The  honorable  speaker,  too,  referred  the  prosperous  con- 
dition of  our  commerce  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion and  to  the  provisions  established  under  it.  I  am 
the  last  man  in  the  world  to  deny  the  happy  influence 
of  that  instrument  in  meliorating  the  condition  of  this 
nation.  But  our  commercial  prosperity  is  owing  much 
more  to  accident  and  nature,  and  much  less  to  law,  than 


24  SPEECH   ON  FORTIFYING 

we  are  apt  to  imagine  or  are  willing  to  allow.  Every 
year  we  get  together  on  this  floor  to  consult  concerning 
the  public  good.  The  state  of  commerce  makes  a  capi- 
tal object  in  all  our  deliberations.  We  have  our  com- 
mittee of  commerce  and  manufactures,  and  a  great  part 
of  every  session  is  exhausted  in  discussing  their  provi- 
sions, limitations,  and  restrictions,  until  at  last  we  slide 
into  the  belief  that  commerce  is  of  our  creation  ;  that  it 
has  its  root  in  the  statute  book ;  that  its  sap  is  drawn 
from  our  parchment,  and  that  it  spreads  and  flourishes 
under  the  direct  heat  of  the  legislative  ray.  But  what 
is  the  fact  ?  Look  into  your  laws.  What  are  they  ? 
Nine-tenths  —  I  should  speak  nearer  the  truth  should  I 
say  ninety-nine-hundredths  of  them  —  are  nothing  more 
than  means  by  which  you  secure  your  share  of  the 
products  of  commerce  ;  they  constitute  the  machinery 
by  which  you  pluck  its  Hesperian  fruit,  and  have  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  root  that  supports  it,  or  with  the 
native  vigor  which  exudes  into  this  rich  luxuriance. 
Sir,  the  true  tap-root  of  commerce  is  found  in  the 
nature  and  character  of  the  people  who  carry  it  on. 
They  and  their  ancestors  for  nearly  two  centuries  have 
been  engaged  in  it.  The  industry  of  every  class  of  men 
in  the  eastern  States  has  reference  to  its  condition,  and 
is  affected  by  it.  Why  then  treat  it  as  a  small  concern; 
as  an  affair  only  of  traders  and  of  merchants?  Why 
intimate  that  agriculture  can  flourish  without  it  ?  when, 
in  fact, -the  interests  of  these  two  branches  of  industry 
are  so  intimately  connected  that  the  slightest  affection 
of  the  one  is  instantly  communicated  to  the  other.  I 
know  very  well  that  there  is  a  great  difference  between 
the  relations  of  commerce  and  agriculture  in  the  south- 


THE   PORTS   AND   HARBORS.  25 

ern  and  in  the  eastern  States.  And  this  is  one  of  the 
chief  causes  of  that  diversity  of  sentiment  which  pre- 
vails among  those  who  dwell  in  these  different  parts  of 
the  Union.  In  the  southern  States  there  are  compara- 
tively few,  if  any,  who  depend  on  commerce  altogether 
for  subsistence.  Whatever  affects  commercial  pros- 
perity produces  no  general  distress  or  discontent,  Per- 
haps insurance  or  freight  may  advance  a  little  in 
consequence  of  its  embarrassment.  Perhaps  one  or 
other  of  their  great  staples  may  find  not  so  ready  or  so 
high  a  market.  But  these  inconveniences  throw  none 
out  of  employment  or  out  of  bread.  Very  different  is 
the  state  of  things  in  the  eastern  States.  There  com- 
merce is  not  merely  as  the  honorable  speaker  called  it, 
"  a  waggon,  a  mode  of  conveyance  of  product  to  the 
consumer ;  "  it  is  more,  infinitely  more  :  it  establishes 
within  the  country  an  immense  fund  of  internal  con- 
sumption. All  its  dependants,  merchants,  tradesmen, 
mechanics,  seamen,  and  laborers  of  every  class  and 
description,  look  to  it,  either  for  that  profit  which  makes 
a  great  portion  of  their  happiness,  or  for  that  employ- 
ment on  which  their  subsistence  depends. 

The  state  of  agriculture  is  adapted,  and  has  been  for 
centuries,  to  the  supply  of  the  wants  of  this  internal 
consumption.  The  farmer  is  bound  to  commerce  by  a 
thousand  intimate  ties  which,  while  it  is  in  its  ordinary 
state  of  prosperity,  he  neither  sees  nor  realizes.  But 
let  the  current  stop  and  the  course  of  business  stagnate 
in  consequence  of  any  violent  affection  to  commerce,  the 
effect  is  felt  as  much,  and  in  some  cases  more,  by  those 
who  inhabit  the  mountains,  as  by  those  who  dwell  on 
the  sea-coast.  The  country  is  associated  with  the  city 


26  SPEECH   ON    FOKTIFYIXQ 

in  one  common  distress,  not  merely  through  sympathy 
but  by  an  actual  perception  of  a  union  in  misfortune. 
It  is  this  indissoluble  community  of  interest  between 
agriculture  and  commerce,  which  pervades  the  eastern 
portion  of  the  United  States,  that  makes  our  treatment 
of  the  commercial  interest  one  of  the  most  delicate,  as 
well  as  important  questions  that  can  be  brought  before 
this  legislature.  That  interest  is  not  of  a  nature  long 
to  be  neglected  with  impunity.  Its  powers,  when  once 
brought  into  action  by  the  necessity  of  self-defence, 
cannot  but  be  irresistible  in  this  nation.  Sir,  two-fifths 
of  your  whole  white  population  are  commercial ;  or, 
which  is  the  same  thing  as  to  its  political  effect,  have 
their  happiness  so  dependent  upon  its  prosperity  that 
they  cannot  fail  to  act  in  concert  when  the  object  is  to 
crush  those  who  oppress  or  those  who  are  willing  to 
destroy  it.  Of  the  five  millions  which  now  constitute 
the  white  population  of  these  States,  two  millions  are 
north  and  east  of  New  Jersey.  This  great  mass  is  natu- 
rally and  indissolubly  connected  with  commerce.  To 
this  is  to  be  added  the  like  interest,  and  that  of  no 
inconsiderable  weight,  which  exists  in  the  middle  and 
southern  States.  Are  these  powerful  influences  to  be 
forgotten  or  despised  ?  Are  such  portions  of  the  Union 
to  be  told  that  they  are  not  to  be  defended,  neither  on  the 
ocean  nor  yet  on  the  land?  Will  they  —  ought  they  — 
to  submit  to  a  system  which,  at  the  same  time  that  it 
extracts  from  their  industry  the  whole  national  revenue, 
neither  protects  it  abroad  nor  at  home  ?  It  needs  no 
spirit  of  prophecy  to  say  they  will  not.  It  is  no  breach  of 
any  duty  to  say  they  ought  not.  No  power  on  earth  can 
prevent  a  party  from  growing  up  in  these  States  in  sup- 


THE   POUTS  AND   HARBORS.  27 

port  of  the  rights  of  commerce  to  a  sea  and  land  protec- 
tion. The  state  of  things  which  must  necessarily  follow 
is  of  all  others  to  be  deprecated.  As  I  have  said  before, 
when  party  passions  run  parallel  to  local  interests  of 
great  power  and  extent,  nothing  can  prevent  national 
convulsions  ;  all  the  consequences  of  which  can  neither 
be  numbered  nor  measured. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  introduce  this  idea  to  threaten 
or  terrify.  I  speak  I  hope  to  wise  men,  —  to  men  of 
experience  and  of  acquaintance  with  human  nature, 
both  in  history  and  by  observation.  Is  it  possible  to 
content  great,  intelligent,  and  influential  portions  of 
your  citizens  by  any  thing  short  of  a  real  attention  to 
their  interests,  in  some  degree  proportionate  to  their 
magnitude  and  nature  ?  When  this  is  not  the  case,  can 
any  political  union  be  either  happy  or  lasting  ?  Now  is 
the  time  to  give  a  pledge  to  the  commercial  interests 
that  they  may  be  assured  of  protection,  let  whatever 
influence  predominate  in  the  legislature.  A  great  ma- 
jority of  this  house  are  from  States  not  connected  inti- 
mately with  commerce.  Show,  then,  those  which  are, 
that  you  feel  for  them  as  brothers ;  that  you  are  willing 
to  give  them  a  due  share  of  the  national  revenue  for 
their  protection.  Show  an  enlightened  and  fair  reci- 
procity. Be  superior  to  any  exclusive  regard  to  local 
interest.  On  such  principles  this  Union,  so  desirable 
and  so  justly  dear  to  us  all,  will  continue  and  be  cher- 
ished by  every  member  of  the  compact.  But  let  a  nar- 
row, selfish,  local,  sectional  policy  prevail,  and  struggles 
will  commence,  which  will  terminate,  through  irritations 
and  animosities,  in  either  a  change  of  the  system  of  gov- 
ernment or  in  its  dissolution. 


SPEECH 


ON  THE  BILL  FOR  AUTHORIZING  THE  PRESIDENT  TO 
SUSPEND  THE  EMBARGO  UNDER  CERTAIN  CIR- 
CUMSTANCES. 

APRIL,  1808. 


SPEECH 

ON  THE  BILL  FOR  AUTHORIZING  THE  PRESIDENT  TO 
SUSPEND  THE  EMBARGO  UNDER  CERTAIN  CIRCUM- 
STANCES. 

APRIL,  1808. 


[SEVENTY  years  ago  commerce  was  the  chief  occupation  of 
the  sea-bound  States,  giving  wealth  to  the  capitalists  and  employ- 
ment to  the  masses.  The  course  of  England  and  France  had 
done  much  to  cripple  the  operations  of  trade ;  but  it  was  left 
for  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  give  it  its  coup  de 
grace.  The  governing,  or  Democratic  party,  with  Mr.  Jefferson 
at  its  head,  entertained  very  extravagant  notions  as  to  the  impor- 
tance of  American  commerce  to  Europe,  and  especially  to  Eng- 
land. Mr.  Jefferson  thought  he  saw  in  commerce  the  means  of 
carrying  on  a  war  with  England,  at  the  expense  only  of  ruining 
the  mercantile  class  and  the  multitude  dependent  upon  it  for  sup- 
port. In  these  ideas  an  act  forbidding  the  importation  of  cer- 
tain articles  from  England,  including  the  principal  objects  of 
commerce,  had  been  passed  in  1806,  known  as  the  Non-impor- 
tation Act.  But  the  final  blow  was  held  back  until  the  Decem- 
ber of  the  next  year,  when  the  famous  embargo  was  laid  on  the 
trade  of  the  country.  On  the  18th  of  December,  Mr.  Jefferson 
sent  to  the  Senate  the  very  shortest  message  known  to  our  his- 
tory, consisting  of  two  sentences,  recommending  "  the  inhibition 
of  the  departure  of  our  vessels  from  the  ports  of  the  United 
States "  in  order  to  "  keep  in  safety  these  essential  resources." 
Obedient  to  this  behest,  the  Senate  passed  the  necessary  act 
through  all  its  stages  in  four  hours,  under  a  suspension  of  the 


32  SPEECH   ON   THE 

rules.  In  the  House  it  occupied  rather  more  time,  but  was  car- 
ried by  a  strict  party  vote.  The  effect  of  this  measure  on  the 
prosperity  of  the  Jiorthern  States,  and  especially  of  New  Eng- 
land, was  most  calamitous.  It  was  a  blow  dealt  not  merely  at 
the  prosperity  of  the  rich,  but  at  the  daily  bread  of  the  poor. 
And  they  were  told  that  all  this  was  for  their  protection  and 
their  own  good ! 

On  the  eve  of  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  the  next  April, 
the  ruling  party  saw  that  it  was  necessary  to  give  the  President 
some  power  over  the  embargo  during  the  recess ;  and  an  act  was 
introduced  authorizing  him  to  suspend  its  operation  in  the  event 
of  peace  between  the  European  belligerents,  or  of  such  a  change 
of  policy  on  their  part  as  to  make  our  commerce  safe.  It  was 
on  this  bill  that  Mr.  Quincy  made  the  following  speech.  He 
did  not  object  to  investing  the  President  with  the  proposed 
power  of  suspending  the  embargo.  He  wished,  on  the  con- 
trary, to  make  this  power  absolute,  so  that  he  could  exercise  it 
in  case  the  pressure  of  the  embargo  should  endanger  the  internal 
peace  of  the  country.  The  danger  of  insurrection  at  home  he 
regarded  as  a  very  possible  one,  while  he  looked  upon  the  occur- 
rence of  the  conditions  contained  in  the  bill  as  morally  impossi 
sible,  under  the  existing  relations  of  England  and  France.  —  ED.] 

MR.  CHAIRMAN, — The  amendment  proposed  to  this 
bill  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Randolph)  has 
for  its  object  to  limit  the  executive  discretion  in  sus- 
pending the  embargo  to  certain  specified  events,  —  the 
removal  of  the  French  decrees ;  the  revocation  of  the 
British  orders.  It  differs  from  the  bill,  as  it  restricts 
the  range  of  the  President's  power  to  relieve  the  people 
from  this  oppressive  measure.  In  this  point  of  view,  it 
appears  to  me  even  more  objectionable  than  the  bill 
itself.  To  neither  can  I  yield  my  sanction.  And,  as 
the  view  which  I  shall  offer  will  be  different  from  any 
which  has  been  taken  of  this  subject,  I  solicit  the  indul- 
gence of  the  committee. 


SUSPENSION   OF  THE  EMBARGO.  33 

A  few  days  since,  when  the  principle  of  this  bill  was 
under  discussion,  in  the  form  of  a  resolution,  a  wide 
field  was  opened.  Almost  every  subject  had  the  honors 
of  debate  except  that  which  was  the  real  object  of  it. 
Our  British  and  French  relations,  the  merits  and  de- 
merits of  the  expired  and  rejected  treaty,  as  well  as 
those  of  the  late  negotiators,  and  of  the  present  admin- 
istration, —  all  were  canvassed.  I  enter  not  upon  these 
topics.  They  are  of  a  high  and  most  interesting 
nature ;  but  their  connection  with  the  principle  of  this 
bill  is,  to  say  the  least,  remote.  There  are  considera- 
tions intimately  connected  with  it,  enough  to  interest 
our  zeal,  and  to  awaken  our  anxiety. 

The  question  referred  to  our  consideration  is,  shall 
the  President  be  authorized  to  suspend  the  embargo  on 
the  occurrence  of  certain  specified  contingencies  ?  The 
same  question  is  included  in  the  proposed  amendment 
and  the  bill.  Both  limit  the  exercise  of  the  power  of 
suspension  of  the  embargo  to  the  occurrence  of  certain 
events.  The  only  difference  is,  that  the  discretion 
given  by  the  former  is  more  limited  ;  that  given  by  the 
latter  is  more  liberal. 

In  the  course  of  the  former  discussion,  a  constitu- 
tional objection  was  raised,  which,  if  well  founded,  puts 
an  end  to  both  bill  and  amendment.  It  is  impossible, 
therefore,  not  to  give  it  a  short  examination.  It  was 
contended  that  the  Constitution  had  not  given  this 
House  the  power  to  authorize  the  President  at  his  dis- 
cretion to  suspend  a  law.  The  gentleman  from  Mary- 
land (Mr.  Key),  and  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
(Mr.  Randolph),  both  of  great  authority  and  influence 

in  this  House,  maintained  this  doctrine  with  no  less 

3 


34  SPEECH    ON   THE 

zeal  than  eloquence.  I  place  my  opinion,  with  great 
diffidence,  in  the  scale,  opposite  to  theirs.  But  as  my 
conviction  is  different,  I  must  give  the  reasons  for  it,  — 
why  I  adhere  to  the  old  canons ;  those  which  have  been 
received  as  the  rule,  both  of  faith  and  practice,  by 
every  political  sect  which  has  had  power,  ever  since  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  rather  than  to  these  new 
dogmas. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  has  in  every  part  reference  to  the  nature  of 
things  and  the  necessities  of  society.  No  portion  of  it 
was  intended  as  a  mere  ground  for  the  trial  of  techni- 
cal skill  or  verbal  ingenuity.  The  direct,  express  pow- 
ers, with  which  it  invests  Congress,  are  always  to  be  so 
construed  as  to  enable  the  people  to  attain  the  end  for 
which  they  were  given.  This  is  to  be  gathered  from 
the  nature  of  those  powers,  compared  with  the  known 
exigencies  of  society  and  the  other  provisions  of  the 
Constitution.  If  a  question  arise,  as  in  this  case,  con- 
cerning -the  extent  of  the  incidental  and  implied  powers 
vested  in  us  by  the  Constitution,  the  instrument  itself 
contains  the  criterion  by  which  it  is  to  be  decided.  We 
have  authority  to  make  "  laws  necessary  and  proper  for 
carrying  into  execution  "  powers  unquestionably  vested. 
Reference  must  be  had  to  the  nature  of  these  powers  to 
know  what  is  "  necessary  and  proper  "  for  their  wise 
execution.  When  this  necessity  and  propriety  appear, 
the  Constitution  has  enabled  us  to  make  the  correspond- 
ent provisions.  To  the  execution  of  many  of  the 
powers  vested  in  us  by  the  Constitution,  a  discretion  is 
necessarily  and  properly  incident.  And  when  this 
appears  from  the  nature  of  any  particular  power,  it  is 


SUSPENSION   OF  THE   EMBARGO.  35 

certainly  competent  for  us  to  provide  by  law  that  such 
a  discretion  shall  be  exercised.  Thus,  for  instance,  the 
power  to  borrow  money  must  in  its  exercise  be  regu- 
lated, from  its  very  nature,  by  circumstances,  not  always 
to  be  anticipated  by  the  legislature  at  the  time  of 
passing  a  law  authorizing  a  loan.  Will  any  man.  con- 
tend that  the  legislature  is  necessitated  to  direct  either 
absolutely  that  a  certain  sum  shall  be  borrowed,  or  to 
limit  the  event  on  which  the  loan  is  to  take  place  ? 
Cannot  it  vest  a  general  discretion  to  borrow  or  not  to 
borrow,  according  to  the  view  which  the  executive  may 
possess  of  the  state  of  the  Treasury,  and  of  the  general 
exigencies  of  the  country;  particularly  in  cases  where 
the  loan  is  contemplated  at  some  future  day,  when  per- 
haps Congress  is  not  in  session,  and  when  the  state  of 
the  Treasury,  or  of  the  country,  cannot  be  foreseen? 
In  the  case  of  the  two  millions  appropriated  for  the 
purchase  of  the  Floridas,  such  a  discretion  was  invested 
in  the  executive.  He  was  authorized,  "  if  necessary,  to 
borrow  the  sum,  or  any  part  thereof."  This  authority 
he  never  exercised,  and  thus,  according  to  the  argument 
of  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  he  has  made  null  a  leg- 
islative act.  For,  so  far  as  it  depended  upon  his  discre- 
tion, this  not  being  exercised,  it  is  a  nullity.  The  power 
"  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  United  States  "  will  present  a 
case  in  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  power,  a  discretion 
to  suspend  the  operation  of  a  law  may  be  necessary  and 
proper  to  its  execution.  Congress  by  one  law  directs 
the  executive  to  pay  off  the  eight  per  cent  stock. 
Will  gentlemen  seriously  contend  that  by  another  it 
may  not  invest  him  with  a  general  discretion  to  stop  the 
payment ;  that  is,  to  suspend  the  operation  of  the  former 


36  SPEECH   ON   THE 

law,  if  the  state  of  the  Treasury,  or  even  more  generally 
if  the  public  good  should  in  his  opinion  require  it  ?  An 
epidemic  prevails  in  one  of  our  commercial  cities  ;  inter- 
course is  prohibited  with  it ;  Congress  is  about  to  ter- 
minate its  session,  and  the  distemper  still  rages.  Can  it 
be  questioned  that  it  is  within  our  constitutional  power 
to  authorize  the  President  to  suspend  the  operation  of 
the  law,  whenever  the  public  safety  will  permit? 
whenever,  in  his  opinion,  it  is  expedient  ?  The  meanest 
individual  in  society,  in  the  most  humble  transactions  of 
business,  can  avail  himself  of  the  discretion  of  his  con- 
fidential agent,  in  cases  where  his  own  cannot  be  ap- 
plied. Is  it  possible  that  the  combined  wisdom  of  the 
nation  is  debarred  from  investing  a  similar  discretion, 
whenever,  from  the  nature  of  the  particular  power,  it  is 
necessary  and  proper  to  its  execution  ? 

The  power  of  suspending  laws,  against  which  we  have 
so  many  warnings  in  history,  was  a  power  exercised  con- 
trary to  the  law,  or  in  denial  of  its  authority,  and  not 
under  the  law  and  by  virtue  of  its  express  enactment. 
Without  entering  more  minutely  into  the  argument,  I 
cannot  doubt  but  that  Congress  does  possess  the  power 
to  authorize  the  President  by  law  to  exercise  a  discretion- 
ary suspension  of  a  law.  A  contrary  doctrine  would 
lead  to  multiplied  inconveniences,  arid  would  be  wholly 
inconsistent  with  the  proper  execution  of  some  of  the 
powers  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  true  that  this,  like 
every  other  power,  is  liable  to  abuse.  But  we  are  not 
to  forego  a  healthy  action,  because,  in  its  excess,  it  may 
be  injurious. 

The  expediency  of  investing  the  executive  with  such 
an  authority  is  always  a  critical  question.  In  this  case, 


SUSPENSION   OF   THE   EMBARGO.  37 

from  the  magnitude  of  the  subject  and  the  manner  in 
which  the  embargo  oppresses  all  our  interests,  the 
inquiry  into  our  duty  in  relation  to  it  is  most  solemn 
and  weighty.  It  is  certain  some  provision  must  be 
made  touching  the  embargo  previous  to  our  adjourn- 
ment. A  whole  people  is  laboring  under  a  most  griev- 
ous oppression.  All  the  business  of  the  nation  is 
deranged.  All  its  active  hopes  are  frustrated.  All  its 
industry  stagnant.  Its  numerous  products  hastening  to 
their  market,  are  stopped  in  their  course.  A  dam  is 
thrown  across  the  current,  and  every  hour  the  strength 
and  the  tendency  towards  resistance  is  accumulating. 
The  scene  we  are  now  witnessing  is  altogether  unpar- 
alleled in  history.  The  tales  of  fiction  have  no  parallel 
for  it.  A  new  writ  is  executed  upon  a  whole  people. 
Not,  indeed,  the  old  monarchial  writ,  ne  exeat  regno, 
but  a  new  republican  writ,  ne  exeat  republicd.  Free- 
men, in  the  pride  of  their  liberty,  have  restraints  im- 
posed on  them  which  despotism  never  exercised.  They 
are  fastened  down  to  the  soil  by  the  enchantment  of 
law  ;  and  their  property  vanishes  in  the  very  process  of 
preservation.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  separate  and 
leave  such  a  people  at  such  a  moment  as  this,  without 
administering  some  opiate  to  their  distress.  Some  hope, 
however  distant,  of  alleviation  must  be  proffered  ;  some 
prospect  of  relief  opened.  Otherwise,  justly  might  we 
fear  for  the  result  of  such  an  unexampled  pressure. 
Who  can  say  what  counsels  despair  might  suggest,  or 
what  weapons  it  might  furnish?  Some  provision,  then, 
in  relation  to  the  embargo,  is  unavoidable.  The  nature 
of  it,  is  the  inquiry.  Three  courses  have  been  pro- 
posed, —  to  repeal  it ;  to  stay  here  and  watch  it  ;  to 


38  SPEECH   ON   THE 

leave  with  the  executive  the  power  to  suspend  it. 
Concerning  repeal  I  will  say  nothing.  I  respect  the 
known  and  immutable  determination  of  the  majority  of 
this  House.  However  convinced  I  may  be  that  repeal 
is  the  only  wise  and  probably  the  only  safe  course,  I 
cannot  persuade  myself  to  urge  arguments  which  have 
been  often  repeated,,  and  to  which,  so  far  from  granting 
them  any  weight,  very  few  seem  willing  to  listen.  The 
end  to  which  I  aim  will  not  counteract  the  settled  plan 
of  policy.  I  consider  the  embargo  as  a  measure  from 
which  we  are  not  to  recede,  at  least  not  during  the 
present  session.  And  my  object  of  research  is,  in  what 
hands,  and  under  what  auspices  it  shall  be  left,  so  as 
best  to  effect  its  avowed  purpose  and  least  to  injure 
the  community.  Repeal,  then,  is  out  of  the  question. 
Shall  we  stay  by  and  watch  ?  This  has  been  recom- 
mended. Watch  !  what  ?  "  Why,  the  crisis  !  "  And 
do  gentlemen  seriously  believe  that  any  crisis  which 
events  in  Europe  are  likely  to  produce  will  be  either 
prevented  or  ameliorated,  by  such  a  body  as  this  re- 
maining, during  the  whole  summer,  perched  upon  this 
bill  ?  To  the  tempest  which  is  abroad  we  can  give  no 
direction  :  over  it  we  have  no  control.  It  may  spend 
its  force  on  the  ocean,  now  desolate  by  our  laws,  or  it 
may  lay  waste  our  shores.  We  have  abandoned  the 
former,  and  for  the  latter,  though  we  have  been  six 
months  in  session,  we  have  prepared  no  adequate 
shield.  Besides,  in  my  apprehension,  it  is  the  first  duty 
of  this  House  to  expedite  the  return  of  its  members  to 
their  constituents.  We  have  been  six  months  in  con- 
tinued session.  We  begin,  I  fear,  to  lose  our  sympa- 
thies for  those  whom  we  represent.  What  can  we 


SUSPENSION   OF   THE   EMBARGO.  39 

know,  in  this  wilderness,  of  the  effects  of  our  measures 
upon  civilized  and  commercial  life  ?  We  see  nothing, 
we  feel  .nothing,  but  through  the  intervention  of  news- 
papers, or  of  letters.  The  one  obscured  by  the  filth  of 
party  ;  the  other  often  distorted  by  personal  feeling  or 
by  private  interest.  It  is  our  immediate,  our  indispen- 
sable duty,  to  mingle  with  the  mass  of  our  brethren 
and  by  direct  intercourse  to  learn  their  will ;  to  realize 
the  temperature  of  their  minds  ;  to  ascertain  their  sen- 
timents concerning  our  measures.  The  only  course 
that  remains  is  to  leave  with  the  executive  the  power 
to  suspend  the  embargo.  But  the  degree  of  power  with 
which  he  ought  to  be  vested  is  made  a  question.  Shall 
he  be  limited  only  by  his  sense  of  the  public  good,  to 
be  collected  from  all  the  unforeseen  circumstances 
which  may  occur  during  the  recess ;  or  shall  it  be  exer- 
cised only  on  the  occurrence  of  certain  specified  contin- 
gencies? The  bill  proposes  the  last  mode.  It  also 
contains  other  provisions  highly  exceptionable  and  dan- 
gerous ;  inasmuch  as  it  permits  the  President  to  raise 
the  embargo,  "  in  part  or  in  whole,"  and  authorizes  him 
to  exercise  an  unlimited  discretion  as  to  the  penalties 
and  restrictions  he  may  lay  upon  the  commerce  he  shall 
allow.  My  objections  to  the  bill,  therefore,  are  first, 
that  it  limits  the  exercise  of  the  executive  as  to  the 
whole  embargo,  to  particular  events,  which  if  they  do 
not  occur,  no  discretion  can  be  exercised,  and  let  the 
necessity  of  abandoning  the  measure  be,  in  other  re- 
spects, ever  so  great,  the  specified  events  not  occurring, 
the  embargo  is  absolute  at  least  until  the  ensuing  ses- 
sion ;  next,  that  if  the  events  do  happen,  the  whole  of 
the  commerce  he  may  in  his  discretion  set  free  is  en- 


40  SPEECH  OK  THE 

tirely  at  his  mercy  :  the  door  is  opened  to  every  species 
of  favoritism,  personal  or  local.  This  power  may  not  be 
abused,  but  it  ought  not  to  be  intrusted.  The  true, 
the  only  safe  ground  on  which  this  measure,  during  our 
absence,  ought  to  be  placed  is  that  which  was  taken 
in  the  year  1794.  The  President  ought  to  have  author- 
ity to  take  off  the  prohibition  whenever,  in  his  judg- 
ment, the  public  good  shall  require ;  not  partially,  not 
under  arbitrary  bonds  and  restrictions,  but  totally,  if  at 
all.  I  know  that  this  will  be  rung  in  the  popular  ear 
as  an  unlimited  power.  Dictatorships,  protectorships, 
"  shadows  dire,  will  throng  into  the  memor}'."  But  let 
gentlemen  weigh  the  real  nature  of  the  power  I  advo- 
cate, and  they  will  find  it  not  so  enormous  as  it  first 
appears,  and  in  effect  much  less  than  the  bill  itself  pro- 
poses to  invest.  In  the  one  case  he  has  the  simple  and 
solitary  power  of  raising  or  retaining  the  prohibition, 
according  to  his  view  of  the  public  good.  In  the  other 
he  is  not  only  the  judge  of  the  events  specified  in  the 
bill,  but  also  of  the  degree  of  commerce  to  be  per- 
mitted, of  the  place  from  which  and  to  which  it  is  to 
be  allowed ;  he  is  the  judge  of  its  nature,  and  has 
the  power  to  impose  whatever  regulation  he  pleases. 
Surely  there  can  be  no  question  but  that  the  latter 
power  is  of  much  more  magnitude  and  more  portentous 
than  the  former.  I  solicit  gentlemen  to  lay  aside  their 
prepossessions  and  to  investigate  what  the  substantial 
interest  of  this  country  requires ;  to  consider  by  what 
dispositions  this  measure  may  be  made  least  dangerous 
to  the  tranquillity  and  interests  of  this  people,  and  most 
productive  of  that  peculiar  good  which  is  avowed  to  be 
its  object.  I  address  not  those  who  deny  our  constitu" 


SUSPENSION   OF   THE  EMBAEGO.  41 

tional  power  to  invest  a  discretion  to  suspend,  but  I 
address  the  great  majority  who  are  friendly  to  this  bill, 
who,  by  adopting  it,  sanction  the  constitutionality  of 
the  grant  of  fresh  authority,  to  whom,  therefore,  the 
degree  of  discretion  is  a  fair  question  of  expediency. 
In  recommending  that  a  discretion,  not  limited  by 
events,  should  be  vested  in  the  executive,  I  can  have 
no  personal  wish  to  augment  his  power.  He  is  no 
political  friend  of  mine.  I  deem  it  essential,  both  for 
the  tranquillity  of  the  people  and  for  the  success  of  the 
measure,  that  such  a  power  should  be  committed  to 
him.  Neither  personal  nor  party  feelings  shall  prevent 
me  from  advocating  a  measure,  in  my  estimation,  salu- 
tary to  the  most  important  interests  of  this  country. 
It  is  true  that  I  am  among  the  earliest  and  the  most 
uniform  opponents  of  the  embargo.  I  have  seen  noth- 
ing to  vary  my  original  belief,  that  its  policy  was 
equally  cruel  to  individuals  and  mischievous  to  society. 
As  a  weapon  to  control  foreign  powers,  it  seemed  to  me 
dubious  in  its  theory,  uncertain  in  its  operation  ;  of  all 
possible  machinery  the  most  difficult  to  set  up  and  the 
most  expensive  to  maintain.  As  a  means  to  preserve 
our  resources,  nothing  could,  to  my  mind,  be  more  ill 
adapted.  The  best  guarantees  of  the  interest  society 
has  in  the  wealth  of  the  members  which  compose  it,  are 
the  industry,  intelligence,  and  enterprise  of  the  indi- 
vidual proprietors,  strengthened  as  they  always  are  by 
knowledge  of  business,  and  quickened  by  that  which 
gives  the  keenest  edge  to  human  ingenuity,  —  self-inter- 
est. When  all  the  property  of  a  multitude  is  at  hazard, 
the  simplest  and  surest  way  of  securing  the  greatest 
portion  is  not  to  limit  individual  exertion,  but  to  stim- 


42  SPEECH   ON   THE 

ulate  it ;  not  to  conceal  the  nature  of  the  exposure, 
but,  by  giving  a  full  knowledge  of  the  state  of  things, 
to  leave  the  wit  of  every  proprietor  free  to  work  out 
the  salvation  of  his  property,  according  to  the  opportu- 
nities he  may  discern.  Notwithstanding  the  decrees  of 
the  belligerents,  there  appeared  to  me  a  field  wide 
enough  to  occupy  and  reward  mercantile  enterprise. 
If  we  left  commerce  at  liberty  we  might,  according  to 
the  fable,  lose  some  of  her  golden  eggs  ;  but  if  we 
crushed  commerce,  the  parent  which  produced  them, 
with  her  our  future  hopes  perished.  Without  entering 
into  the  particular  details  whence  these  conclusions 
resulted,  it  is  enough  that  they  were  such  as  satisfied 
my  mind  as  to  the  duty  of  opposition  to  the  s}Tstem  in 
its  incipient  state,  and  in  all  the  restrictions  which  have 
grown  out  of  it.  But  the  system  is  adopted.  May 
it  be  successful !  It  is  not  to  diminish  but  to  increase 
the  chance  of  that  success  that  I  urge  that  a  discretion, 
unlimited  by  events,  should  be  vested  in  the  executive. 
I  shall  rejoice  if  this  great  miracle  be  worked.  I  shall 
congratulate  my  country  if  the  experiment  shall  prove 
that  the  old  world  can  be  controlled  by  fear  of  being 
excluded  from  the  commerce  of  the  new.  Happy  shall 
I  be  if,  on  the  other  side  of  this  dark  valley  of  the 
shadow  of  death  through  which  our  commercial  hopes 
are  passing,  shall  be  found  regions  of  future  safety  and 
felicity. 

Among  all  the  propositions  offered  to  this  House, 
no  man  has  suggested  that  we  ought  to  rise  and  leave 
this  embargo,  until  our  return,  pressing  upon  the  people, 
without  some  power  of  suspension  vested  in  the  execu- 
tive. Why  this  uniformity  of  opinion  ?  The  reason  is 


SUSPENSION   OF   THE   EMBARGO.  43 

obvious.  If  the  people  were  left  six  months  without 
hope,  no  man  could  anticipate  the  consequences.  All 
agree  that  such  an  experiment  would  be  unwise  and 
dangerous.  Now,  precisely  the  same  reasons  which 
induce  the  majority  not  to  go  away  without  making 
some  provision  for  its  removal,  on  which  to  feed  popular 
expectation,  is  conclusive  in  my  mind  that  the  discretion 
proposed  to  be  invested  should  not  be  limited  by  con- 
tingencies. The  embargo  power,  which  now  holds  in 
its  palsying  gripe  all  the  hopes  of  this  nation,  is  distin- 
guished by  two  characteristics  of  material  import,  in 
deciding  what  control  shall  be  left  over  it  during  our 
recess.  I  allude  to  its  greatness  and  its  novelty. 

As  to  its  greatness,  nothing  is  like  it.  Every  class  of 
men  feels  it.  Every  interest  in  the  nation  is  affected 
by  it.  The  merchant,  the  farmer,  the  planter,  the 
mechanic,  the  laboring  poor,  —  all  are  sinking  under  its 
weight.  But  there  is  this  that  is  peculiar  to  it,  that 
there  is  no  equality  in  its  nature.  It  is  not  like  taxa- 
tion, which  raises  revenue  according  to  the  average  of 
wealth  ;  burdening  the  rich  and  letting  the  poor  go  free. 
But  it  presses  upon  the  particular  classes  of  society,  in 
an  inverse  ratio  to  the  capacity  of  each  to  bear  it.  From 
those  who  have  much,  it  takes  indeed  something.  But 
from  those  who  have  little,  it  takes  all.  For  what  hope 
is  left  to  the  industrious  poor  when  enterprise,  activity, 
and  capital  are  proscribed  their  legitimate  exercise? 
This  power  resembles  not  the  mild  influences  of  an 
intelligent  mind  balancing  the  interests  and  condition  of 
men,  and  so  conducting  a  complicated  machine  as  to 
make  inevitable  pressure  bear  upon  its  strongest  parts ; 
but  it  is  like  one  of  the  blind  visitations  of  nature,  —  a 


44  SPEECH   OX   THE 

tornado  or  a  whirlwind.  It  sweeps  away  the  weak;,  it 
only  shakes  the  strong.  The  humble  plant,  uprooted, 
is  overwhelmed  by  the  tempest.  The  oak  escapes  with 
the  loss  of  nothing  except  its  annual  honors.  It  is 
true  the  sheriff  does  not  enter  any  man's  house  to  collect 
a  tax  from  his  property.  But  want  knocks  at  his  door, 
and  poverty  thrusts  its  face  in  at  the  window.  And  what 
relief  can  the  rich  extend  ?  They  sit  upon  their  heaps 
and  feel  them  mouldering  into  ruins  under  them.  The 
regulations  of  society  forbid  what  was  once  property  to 
be  so  any  longer.  For  property  depends  on  circulation, 
on  exchange ;  on  ideal  value.  The  power  of  property 
is  all  relative.  It  depends  not  merely  upon  opinion 
here,  but  upon  opinion  in  other  countries.  If  it  be  cut 
off  from  its  destined  market,  much  of  it  is  worth  noth- 
ing, and  all  of  it  is  worth  infinitely  less  than  when  cir- 
culation is  unobstructed. 

This  embargo  power  is,  therefore,  of  all  powers  the 
most  enormous,  in  the  manner  in  which  it  affects  the 
hopes  and  interests  of  a  nation.  But  its  magnitude  is 
not  more  remarkable  than  its  novelty.  An  experiment, 
such  as  is  now  making,  was  never  before  —  I  will  not 
say  tried  —  it  never  before  entered  into  the  human 
imagination.  There  is  nothing  like  it  in  the  narrations 
of  history  or  in  the  tales  of  fiction.  All  the  habits  of  a 
mighty  nation  are  at  once  counteracted.  All  their 
property  depreciated.  All  their  external  connections 
violated.  Five  millions  of  people  are  encaged.  They 
cannot  go  beyond  the  limits  of  that  once  free  country ; 
now  they  are  not  even  permitted  to  thrust  their  own 
property  through  the  grates.  I  am  not  now  questioning 
its  policy ;  its  wisdom,  or  its  practicability :  I  am  merely 


SUSPENSION  OF   THE  EMBARGO.  45 

stating  the  fact.  And  I  ask  if  such  a  power  as  this, 
thus  great,  thus  novel,  thus  interfering  with  all  the 
great  passions  and  interests  of  a  whole  people,  ought  to 
be  left  for  six  months  in  operation,  without  any  power 
of  control,  except  upon  the  occurrence  of  certain  speci- 
fied and  arbitrary  contingencies?  Who  can  foretell 
when  the  spirit  of  endurance  will  cease  ?  Who,  when 
the  strength  of  nature  shall  outgrow  the  strength  of 
your  bonds  ?  Or  if  they  do,  who  can  give  a  pledge  that 
the  patience  of  the  people  will  not  first  be  exhausted. 
I  make  a  supposition,  Mr.  Chairman.  You  are  a  great 
physician ;  you  take  a  hearty,  hale  man,  in  the  very 
pride  of  health,  his  young  blood  all  active  in  his  veins, 
and  you  outstretch  him  on  a  bed ;  you  stop  up  all  his 
natural  orifices,  you  hermetically  seal  down  his  pores,  so 
that  nothing  shall  escape  outwards,  and  that  all  his 
functions  and  all  his  humors  shall  be  turned  inward 
upon  his  system.  While  your  patient  is  laboring  in  the 
very  crisis  of  this  course  of  treatment,  you,  his  physi- 
cian, take  a  journey  into  a  far  country,  and  you  say  to 
his  attendant,  —  "I  have  a  great  experiment  here  in 
process,  and  a  new  one.  It  is  all  for  the  good  of  the 
young  man,  so  do  not  fail  to  adhere  to  it.  These  are 
my  directions,  and  the  power  with  which  I  invest  you. 
No  attention  is  to  be  paid  to  any  internal  symptom 
which  may  occur.  Let  the  patient  be  convulsed  as 
much  as  he  will,  you  are  to  remove  none  of  my  band- 
ages. But,  in  case  something  external  should  happen,  — 
if  the  sky  should  fall,  and  larks  should  begin  to  abound, 
if  three  birds  of  Paradise  should  fly  into  the  window,  — 
the  great  purpose  of  all  these  sufferings  is  answered. 
Then,  and  then  only,  have  you  my  authority  to  admin- 
ister relief." 


46  SPEECH    OX   THE 

The  conduct  of  such  a  physician,  in  such  a  case, 
would  not  be  more  extraordinary  than  that  of  this  House 
in  the  present,  should  it  adjourn  and  limit  the  discretion 
of  the  executive  to  certain  specified  events  arbitrarily 
anticipated ;  leaving  him  destitute  of  the  power  to 
grant  relief  should  internal  symptoms  indicate  that 
nothing  else  would  prevent  convulsions.  If  the  events 
you  specify  do  not  happen,  then  the  embargo  is  abso- 
lutely fixed  until  our  return.  Is  there  one  among  us 
that  has  such  an  enlarged  view  of  the  nature  and  neces- 
sities of  this  people  as  to  warrant  that  such  a  system 
can  continue  six  months  longer?  It  is  a  proposition 
which  no  known  facts  substantiate,  and  which  the  strength 
and  the  universality  of  the  passions  such  a  pressure 
will  set  at  work  in  the  community  render,  to  say  the 
least,  of  very  dubious  issue.  My  argument  in  this  part 
has  this  prudential  truth  for  its  basis :  if  a  great  power 
is  put  in  motion,  affecting  great  interests,  the  power 
which  is  left  to  manage  it  should  be  adequate  to  its 
control.  If  the  power  be  not  only  great  in  its  nature, 
but  novel  in  its  mode  of  operation,  the  superintending 
power  should  be  permitted  to  exercise  a  wise  discretion  ; 
for  if  you  limit  him  by  contingencies,  the  experiment 
may  fail,  or  its  results  be  unexpected.  In  either  case, 
nothing  but  shame  or  ruin  would  be  our  portion. 

But  I  ask  the  House  to  view  this  subject  in  relation  to 
the  success  of  this  measure,  which  the  majority  have 
justly  so  much  at  heart.  Which  position  of  invested 
power  is  the  most  auspicious  to  a  happy  issue  ? 

As  soon  as  this  House  has  risen,  what  think  you  will 
be  the  first  question  every  man  in  this  nation  will  put  to 
his  neighbor?  Will  it  not  be,  —  "  What  has  Congress 


SUSPENSION    OF   THE    EMBARGO.  47 

done  with  the  embargo  ? "     Suppose  the  reply  should 
be,  —  "  They  have  made  no  provision.     This  corroding 
cancer  is  to  be  left  to  prey  on  our  vitals  six  months 
longer."     Is  there  a  man  who  doubts  but  that  such  a 
reply  would  sink  the  heart  of  every  owner  of  property, 
and  of  every  laborer  in  the  community?     No  man  can 
hesitate.     The  magnitude  of  the  evil,  the  certain  pros- 
pect  of   so   terrible  a  calamity  thus   long   protracted, 
would  itself  tend  to  counteract  the  continuance  of  the 
measure  by  the  discontent  and  despair  it  could  not  fail 
to  produce  in  the  great  body  of  the  people.     But  sup- 
pose in  reply  to  such  a  question,  it  should  be  said  — 
"  the  removal  of  the  embargo  depends  upon    events. 
France  must  retrace  her  steps.     England  must  apologize 
and  atone  for  her  insolence.     Two  of  the  proudest  and 
most  powerful  nations  on  the  globe  must  truckle  for  our 
favor,  or  we  shall  persist  in  maintaining  our  dignified 
retirement."     What,  then,  would  be  the  consequence  ? 
would  not  every  reflecting  man  in  the  nation  set  him- 
self at  work  to  calculate  the  probability  of  the  occur- 
rence of  these  events  ?     If  they  were  likely  to  happen, 
the  distress  and  discontent  would  be  scarcely  less  than 
in  the  case  of  absolute  certainty  for  six  months'  perpet- 
uation of  it.     For  if  the  events  do  not  happen,  the 
embargo  is  absolute.     Such  a  state  of  popular  mind  all 
agree  is  .little  favorable  either  to  perseverance  in  the 
measure,  or  to  its  ultimate  success.     But  suppose  that 
the  people  should  find  a  discretionary  power  was  invested 
in  the  executive,  to  act  as  in  his  judgment,  according  to 
circumstances,  the  public  good  should  require.     Would 
not  such  a  state  of  things  have  a  direct  tendency  to 
allay  fear,   to   tranquillize   discontent,   and    encourage 


48  SPEECH   ON   THE 

endurance  of  suffering  ?  Should  experience  prove  that 
it  is  absolutely  insupportable,  there  is  a  constitutional 
way  of  relief.  The  way  of  escape  is  not  wholly  closed. 
The  knowledge  of  this  fact  would  be  alone  a  support  to 
the  people.  They  would  endure  it  longer.  They  would 
endure  it  better.  They  would  be  secure  of  a  more 
cordial  co-operation  in  the  measure  as  the  people  would 
see  they  were  not  wholly  hopeless,  in  case  the  experi- 
ment was  too  oppressive.  Surely,  nothing  can  be  more 
favorable  to  its  success  than  producing  such  a  state  of 
public  sentiment. 

We  are  but  a  young  nation.  The  United  States  are 
scarcely  yet  hardened  into  the  bone  of  manhood.  The 
whole  period  of  our  national  existence  has  been  nothing 
else  than  a  continued  series  of  prosperity.  The  miseries 
of  the  Revolutionary  war  were  but  as  the  pangs  of 
parturition.  The  experience  of  that  period  was  of 
a  nature  not  to  be  very  useful  after  our  nation  had 
acquired  an  individual  form  and  a  manly  constitu- 
tional stamina.  It  is  to  be  feared  we  have  grown 
giddy  with  good  fortune ;  attributing  the  greatness 
of  our  prosperity  to  our  own  wisdom,  rather  than 
to  a  course  of  events  and  a  guidance  over  which 
we  had  no  influence.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  we  are 
now  entering  that  school  of  adversity,  the  first  bles- 
sing of  which  is  to  chastise  an  overweening  conceit 
of  ourselves.  A  nation  mistakes  its  relative  conse- 
quence, when  it  thinks  its  countenance,  or  its  inter- 
course, or  its  existence,  all  important  to  the  rest  of  the 
world.  There  is  scarcely  any  people,  and  none  of  any 
weight  in  the  society  of  nations,  which  does  not  possess 
within  its  own  sphere  all  that  is  essential  to  its  exist- 


SUSPENSION  OF   THE   EMBARGO.  49 

ence.  An  individual  who  should  retire  from  conversa- 
tion with  the  world  for  the  purpose  of  taking  vengeance 
on  it  for  some  real  or  imaginary  wrong  would  soon  find 
himself  grievously  mistaken  :  notwithstanding  the  delu- 
sions of  self-flattery,  he  would  certainly  be  taught  that 
the  world  was  moving  along  just  as  well,  after  his  digni- 
fied retirement,  as  it  did  while  he  intermeddled  with  its 
concerns.  The  case  of  a  nation  which  should  make  a 
similar  trial  of  its  importance  to  other  nations  would 
not  be  very  different  from  that  of  such  an  individual. 
The  intercourse  of  human  life  has  its  basis  in  a  natural 
reciprocity,  which  always  exists,  although  the  vanity  of 
nations,  as  well  as  of  individuals,  will  often  suggest  to 
inflated  fancies  that  they  give  more  than  they  gain  in 
the  interchange  of  friendship,  of  civilities,  or  of  busi- 
ness. I  conjure  gentlemen  not  to  commit  the  nation  as 
to  the  purpose  of  this  embargo  measure,  but,  by  leaving 
a  wise  discretion  during  our  absence  with  the  executive, 
neither  to  admit  nor  deny  by  the  terms  of  our  law  that 
its  object  is  to  coerce  foreign  nations.  Such  a  state  of 
things  is  safest  for  our  own  honor  and  the  wisest  to 
secure  success  for  this  system  of  policy. 


SPEECH 

ON     THE     FIRST     RESOLUTION     REPORTED     BY 
THE  COMMITTEE  ON  FOREIGN    RELATIONS. 

Nov.  28,  1808. 


SPEECH 

ON    THE    FIRST    RESOLUTION    REPORTED    BY    THE 
COMMITTEE     ON    FOREIGN    RELATIONS. 

Nov.  28,  1808. 


[THE  necessity  of  some  more  important  protection  of  the  sea- 
board cities  than  that  provided  by  Mr.  Jefferson's  government 
grew  more  and  more  apparent,  as  the  relations  of  the  United 
States  with  France  and  England  became  more  and  more  compli- 
cated. To  resent  the  injury  done  to  American  commerce  by 
the  new  rulings  of  Lord  Stowell  in  the  Court  of  Admiralty,  and 
the  insult  to  the  American  flag  in  the  right  claimed  and  exer- 
cised by  England  of  searching  our  merchant-ships  for  English 
sailors  and  impressing  them  wherever  found,  the  law  known  as 
the  Non-importation  Act  had  been  passed  shortly  before  the 
speech  of  April  14th,  1806,  was  delivered.  By  this  act  the 
importation  from  Great  Britain,  or  any  of  her  dependencies,  of 
all  the  articles  of  her  commerce  with  the  United  States  was  for- 
bidden. As  this  measure  did  not  have  the  desired  effect  of 
bringing  England  to  her  senses,  Mr.  Jefferson  prepared  to  push 
still  further  his  attempt  to  conquer  her  by  a  war  of  commercial 
restrictions.  The  governing  party  had  most  exaggerated  notions 
of  the  dependence  of  England  upon  the  commerce  of  America, 
and  believed  that  she  would  submit  to  any  terms  rather  than 
lose  it.  In  retaliation  for  the  Berlin  decree  of  Bonaparte, 
declaring  the  British  Islands  in  a  state  of  blockade  and  forbid- 
ding all  neutral  intercourse  with  them,  the  British  government 
in  November,  1807,  issued  the  famous  Orders  in  Council,  for- 
bidding any  commercial  intercourse  with  France  or  her  allies, 


54  SPEECH   ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

excepting  through  some  port  of  Great  Britain  or  Ireland.  All 
ships  engaged  in  this  trade  were  to  touch  at  one  of  the  ports  of 
the  United  Kingdom  and  pay  certain  fees  and  take  out  a  license 
for  permission  to  proceed  on  their  voyage.  To  these  orders 
Bonaparte  soon  replied  by  the  Milan  decree,  by  which  he 
declared  every  vessel  which  complied  with  their  conditions  to  be 
"denationalized,"  and  lawful  prize.  As  the  Americans  were 
the  only  neutrals,  inasmuch  as  all  the  continent  was  either  in 
alliance  with  or  in  subjection  to  Bonaparte,  their  commerce  was 
very  effectually  destroyed.  But  as  if  the  agreement  in  policy  of 
the  two  great  belligerents  of  Europe  were  not  sufficient  for  its 
utter  extinction,  Mr.  Jefferson  devised  his  celebrated  embargo  to 
hinder  adventurous  merchants  from  taking  the  chance  of  capture 
at  their  own  risk.  On  the  18th  of  December,  1807,  he  sent  the 
shortest  presidential  message  on  record,  of  two  sentences  only, 
to  both  Houses,  recommending  an  embargo,  or  prohibition  of  all 
vessels  from  leaving  the  ports  of  the  United  States.  This  mes- 
sage was  received  and  discussed  in  secret  session,  and  was 
despatched  mfour  hours  by  the  Senate,  and  had  its  preliminary 
reading  despatched  in  the  House  with  even  greater  speed, 
though  the  discussion  in  the  committee  of  the  whole  continued 
for  three  days  and  nearly  three  nights, —  the  mure  recent 
application  of  the  previous  question  as  a  daily  instrument  for 
the  suppression  of  debate  not  having  then  been  imagined.  The 
act  finally  passed  by  a  vote  of  eighty-two  yeas  to  forty-four 
nay.s.  The  promulgation  of  this  law  carried  dismay  and  ruin 
to  the  whole  seaboard.  Massachusetts,  which  then  included 
Maine,  felt  the  blow  most  severely,  which  struck  not  merely  at 
her  wealth,  but  at  her  daily  bread.  And  the  victims  of  this  cruel 
measure  were  told  that  its  object  was  only  their  own  protection 
and  advantage!  And  although  both  belligerents  were  ostensibly 
included  in  the  recital  of  grievances  which  led  to  the  measure, 
yet  it  was  scarcely  denied  that  it  was  aimed  chiefly  at  Eng- 
land, the  trade  with  France  being  comparatively  of  no  impor- 
tance. And  Bonaparte  himself  took  this  view  of  the  matter, 
regarding  the  American  embargo  as  a  necessary  complement  of 
his  continental  system,  for  the  destruction  of  England  through 


SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.        55 

that  of  her  commerce.  Before  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  in 
April,  1808,  an  act  was  passed  authorizing  the  President,  in 
case  of  peace  between  the  belligerents,  or  such  other  change 
in  their  measures  as  to  neutral  commerce  as  should  in  his  judg- 
ment justify  such  action,  to  suspend  the  operation  of  the  em- 
bargo. Mr.  Quincy  moved  to  invest  the  President  with  full 
powers,  unrestricted  by  any  conditions,  and  made  the  following 
speech  in  support  of  his  motion.  It  came  to  nothing,  of  course. 
Congress  soon  after  adjourned. 

When  it  reassembled,  by  adjournment,  at  the  beginning  of 
November,  1808,  the  embargo  and  the  state  of  our  relations 
with  foreign  powers  formed  the  staple  of  debate,  as  it  had  of  men's 
thoughts  and  talk  in  the  interval.  The  committee  to  which  so 
much  of  the  President's  message  as  treated  of  foreign  relations 
having  reported  the  following  resolution  :  "  Resolved  :  that  the 
United.  States  cannot  without  a  sacrifice  of  their  rights,  honor, 
and  independence,  submit  to  the  late  edicts  of  Great  Britain  and 
France,"  upon  this  hint  Mr.  Quincy  spoke  as  follows,  on  the 
28th  of  November.  —  ED.] 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  I  am  not,  in  general,  a  friend  to 
abstract  legislation.  Ostentatious  declaration  of  gen- 
eral principles  is  so  often  the  resort  of  weakness  and  of 
ignorance  ;  it  is  so  frequently  the  subterfuge  of  men 
who  are  willing  to  amuse  or  who  mean  to  delude  the 
people,  that  it  is  with  great  reluctance  I  yield  to  such  a 
course  my  sanction. 

If,  however,  a  formal  annunciation  of  a  determination 
to  perform  one  of  the  most  common  and  undeniable  of 
national  duties  be  deemed  by  a  majority  of  this  House 
essential  to  their  character,  or  to  the  attainment  of  pub- 
lic confidence,  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  the  one  now 
offered,  is  as  unexceptionable  as  any  it  would  be  likely 
to  propose. 

In  this  view,  however,  I  lay  wholly  out  of  sight  the 


56  SPEECH    ON    FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

report  of  the  committee,  by  which  it  is  accompanied 
and  introduced.  The  course  advocated  in  that  report 
is,  in  my  opinion,  loathsome  ;  the  spirit  it  breathes  dis- 
graceful ;  the  temper  it  is  likely  to  inspire,  neither 
calculated  to  regain  the  rights  we  have  lost,  nor  to 
preserve  those  which  remain  to  us.  It  is  an  established 
maxim  that,  in  adopting  a  resolution  offered  by  a  com- 
mittee in  this  House,  no  member  is  pledged  to  support 
the  reasoning,  or  made  sponsor  for  the  facts  which  they 
have  seen  fit  to  insert  in  it.  I  exercise,  therefore,  a 
common  right,  when  I  subscribe  to  the  resolution,  not 
on  the  principles  of  the  committee,  but  on  those  which 
obviously  result  from  its  terms,  and  are  the  plain  mean- 
ing of  its  expressions. 

I  agree  to  this  resolution,  because,  in  my  apprehen- 
sion, it  offers  a  solemn  pledge  to  this  nation  —  a  pledge 
not  to  be  mistaken,  and  not  to  be  evaded  —  that  the 
present  system  of  public  measures  shall  be  totally  aban- 
doned. Adopt  it,  and  there  is  an  end  of  the  policy  of 
deserting  our  rights,  under  a  pretence  of  maintaining 
them.  Adopt  it,  and  we  no  longer  yield  to  the  beck  of 
haughty  belligerents  the  rights  of  navigating  the  ocean, 
that  choice  inheritance  bequeathed  to  us  by  our  fathers. 
Adopt  it,  and  there  is  a  termination  of  that  base  and 
abject  submission  by  which  this  coujatry  has  for  these 
eleven  months  been  disgraced  and  brought  to  the  brink 
of  ruin. 

That  the  natural  import  and  necessary  implication  of 
the  terms  of  this  resolution  are  such  as  I  have  sug- 
gested will  be  apparent  from  a  very  transient  consider- 
ation. What  do  its  terms  necessarily  include  ?  They 
contain  an  assertion  and  a  pledge.  The  assertion  is, 


SPEECH   ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.  57 

that  the  edicts  of  Great  Britain  and  France  are  contrary 
to  our  rights,  honor,  and  independence.  The  pledge  is, 
that  we  will  not  submit  to  them. 

Concerning  the  assertion  contained  in  this  resolu- 
tion, I  would  say  nothing,  were  it  not  that  I  fear  that 
those  who  have  so  long  been  in  the  habit  of  looking  at 
the  orders  and  decrees  of  foreign  powers  as  the  meas- 
ure of  the  rights  of  our  own  citizens,  and  have  been 
accustomed,  in  direct  subserviency  to  them,  of  prohibit- 
ing commerce  altogether,  might  apprehend  that  there 
was  some  lurking  danger  in  such  an  assertion.  They 
may  be  assured  there  can  be  nothing  more  harmless. 
Neither  Great  Britain  or  France  ever  pretended  that 
those  edicts  were  consistent  with  American  rights.  On 
the  contrary,  both  these  nations  ground  those  edicts  on 
the  principle  of  imperious  necessity,  which  admits  the 
injustice  done,  at  the  very  instant  of  executing  the  act 
of  oppression.  No  gentleman  need  have  any  difficulty 
in  screwing  his  courage  up  to  this  assertion.  Neither 
of  the  belligerents  will  contradict  it.  Mr.  Turreau  and 
Mr.  Erskine  will  both  of  them  countersign  the  declara- 
tion to-morrow. 

With  respect  to  the  pledge  contained  in  this  resolu- 
tion, understood  according  to  its  true  import,  it  is  a 
glorious  one.  It  opens  new  prospects.  It  promises  a 
change  in  the  disposition  of  this  House.  It  is  a  solemn 
assurance  to  the  nation,  that  it  will  no  longer  submit  to 
these  edicts. 

It  remains  for  us,  therefore,  to  consider  what  submis- 
sion is,  and  what  the  pledge  not  to  submit  implies. 

One  man  submits  to  the  order,  decree,  or  edict  of 
another,  when  he  does  that  thing  which  such  order, 


58        SPEECH  OX  FOREIGN  RELATIONS. 

decree,  or  edict  commands ;  or  when  he  omits  to  do  that 
thing  which  such  order,  decree,  or  edict  prohibits. 
This,  then,  is  submission.  It  is  to  do  as  we  are  bidden. 
It  is  to  take  the  will  of  another  as  the  measure  of  our 
rights.  It  is  to  yield  to  his  power ;  to  go  where  he 
directs,  or  to  refrain  from  going  where  he  forbids  us. 

If  this  be  submission,  then  the  pledge  not  to  submit 
implies  the  reverse  of  all  this.  It  is  a  solemn  declara- 
tion, that  we  will  not  do  that  thing  which  such  order, 
decree,  or  edict  commands,  or  that  we  will  do  what 
it  prohibits.  This,  then,  is  freedom.  This  is  honor. 
This  is  independence.  It  consists  in  taking  the  nature 
of  things,  and  not  the  will  of  another,  as  the  measure 
of  our  rights.  What  God  and  nature  offer  us,  we  will 
enjoy  in  despite  of  the  commands,  regardless  of  the 
menaces  of  iniquitous  power. 

Let  us  apply  these  correct  and  undeniable  principles 
to  the  edicts  of  Great  Britain  and  France,  and  the  con- 
sequent abandonment  of  the  ocean  by  the  American 
government.  The  decrees  of  France  prohibit  us  from 
trading  with  Great  Britain.  The  orders  of  Great 
Britain  prohibit  us  from  trading  with  France.  And 
what  do  we?  Why — in  direct  subserviency  to  the 
edicts  of  each  —  we  prohibit  our  citizens  from  trading 
with  either.  We  do  more,  as  if  unqualified  submission 
was  not  humiliating  enough,  we  descend  to  an  act  of 
supererogation  in  servility :  we  abandon  trade  alto- 
gether ;  we  not  only  refrain  from  that  particular  trade, 
which  their  respective  edicts  proscribe,  but  lest  the 
ingenuity  of  our  merchants  should  enable  them  to  evade 
their  operation,  to  make  submission  doubly  sure,  the 
American  government  virtually  re-enact  the  edicts  of 


SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.         59 

the  belligerents,  and  abandon  all  the  trade  which,  not- 
withstanding the  practical  effects  of  their  edicts,  remains 
to  us.  The  same  conclusion  will  result  if  we  consider 
our  embargo  in  relation  to  the  objects  of  this  belligerent 
policy.  France  by  her  edicts  would  compress  Great 
Britain,  by  destroying  her  commerce  and  cutting  off  her 
supplies.  All  the  continent  of  Europe,  in  the  hand  of 
Bonaparte,  is  made  subservient  to  this  policy.  The 
embargo  law  of  the  United  States,  in  its  operation,  is  an 
union  with  this  continental  coalition  against  British 
commerce,  at  the  very  moment  most  auspicious  to  its 
success.  Can  any  thing  be  more  in  direct  subserviency 
to  the  views  of  the  French  emperor?  If  we  consider 
the  orders  of  Great  Britain,  the  result  will  be  the  same. 
I  proceed  at  present  on  the  supposition  of  a  perfect 
impartiality  in  our  administration  towards  both  belliger- 
ents, so  far  as  relates  to  the  embargo  law.  Great  Britain 
had  two  objects  in  issuing  her  orders.  First,  to  excite 
discontent  in  the  people  of  the  continent,  by  depriving 
them  of  their  accustomed  colonial  supplies.  Second,  to 
secure  to  herself  that  commerce  of  which  she  deprived 
neutrals.  Our  embargo  co-operates  with  the  British 
views  in  both  respects.  By  our  dereliction  of  the 
ocean,  the  continent  is  much  more  deprived  of  the 
advantages  of  commerce  than  it  would  be  possible  for 
the  British  navy  to  effect,  and,  by  removing  our  compe- 
tition, all  the  commerce  of  the  continent  which  can  be 
forced,  is  wholly  left  to  be  reaped  by  Great  Britain. 
The  language  of  each  sovereign  is  in  direct  conformity 
with  these  ideas.  Napoleon  tells  the  American  minister, 
virtually,  that  we  are  very  good  Americans ;  that 
although  he  will  not  allow  the  property  he  has  in  his 


60  SPEECH   ON   FOREIGN    RELATIONS. 

hands  to  escape  him,  nor  desist  from  burning  and  cap- 
turing our  vessels  on  every  occasion,  yet  that  he  is,  tliiis 
far,  satisfied  with  our  co-operation.  And  what  is  the 
LiiK'-uao-e  of  George  the  Third,  when  our  minister  pre- 

o        o  *— '  •*• 

sents  to  his  consideration  the  embargo  laws.  Is  it  Le 
Roi  s'avisera?  The  king  will  reflect  upon  them.  No, 
it  is  the  pure  language  of  royal  approbation.  Le  Roi 
le  veut.  The  king  wills  it.  Were  you  colonies,  he 
could  expect  no  more.  His  subjects  as  inevitably  get 
that  commerce  which  you  abandon,  as  the  water  will 
certainly  run  into  the  only  channel  which  remains  after 
all  the  others  are  obstructed.  In  whatever  point  of 
view  you  consider  these  embargo  laws  in  relation  to 
those  edicts  and  decrees,  we  shall  find  them  co-operating 
with  each  belligerent  in  its  policy.  In  this  way,  I  grant, 
our  conduct  may  be  impartial ;  but  what  has  become  of 
our  American  rights  to  navigate  the  ocean  ?  They  are 
abandoned  in  strict  conformity  to  the  decrees  of  both 
belligerents.  This  resolution  declares  that  we  will  no 
longer  submit  to  such  degrading  humiliation.  Little  as 
I  relish,  I  will  take  it  as  the  harbinger  of  a  new  day, 
the  pledge  of  a  new  system  of  measures. 

Perhaps  here,  in  strictness,  I  ought  to  close  my  obser- 
vations. But  the  report  of  the  committee,  contrary  to 
what  I  deem  the  principle  of  the  resolution,  unquestion- 
ably recommends  the  continuance  of  the  embargo  laws. 
And  such  is  the  state  of  the  nation,  and  in  particular 
that  portion  of  it  which  in  part  I  represent,  under  their 
oppression,  that  I  cannot  refrain  from  submitting  some 
considerations  on  that  subject. 

When  I  enter  on  the  subject  of  the  embargo,  I  am 
struck  with  wonder  at  the  very  threshold.  I  know  not 


SPEECH   ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.  61 

with  what  words  to  express  my  astonishment.  At  the 
time  I  departed  from  Massachusetts,  if  there  was  an 
impression  which  I  thought  universal,  it  was  that,  at 
the  commencement  of  this  session,  an  end  would  be  put 
to  this  measure.  The  opinion  was  not  so  much  that  it 
would  be  terminated  as  that  it  was  then  at  an  end. 
Sir,  the  prevailing  sentiment,  according  to  my  apprehen- 
sion, was  stronger  than  this,  —  even  that  the  pressure 
was  so  great  that  it  could  not  possibly  be  endured  ;  that 
it  would  soon  be  absolutely  insupportable.  And  this 
opinion,  as  I  then  had  reason  to  believe,  was  not  con- 
fined to  any  one  class  or  description  or  party,  —  that 
even  those  who  were  friends  of  the  existing  adminis- 
tration, and  unwilling  to  abandon  it,  were  yet  satisfied 
that  a  sufficient  trial  had  been  given  to  this  measure. 
With  these  impressions,  I  arrive  in  this  city.  I  hear  the 
incantations  of  the  great  enchanter.  I  feel  his  spell.  I 
see  the  legislative  machinery  begin  to  move.  The  scene 
opens.  And  I  am  commanded  to  forget  all  my  recollec- 
tions, to  disbelieve  the  evidence  of  my  senses,  to  contra- 
dict what  I  have  seen  and  heard  and  felt.  I  hear  that 
all  this  discontent  was  mere  party  clamor,  electioneering 
artifice ;  that  the  people  of  New  England  are  able  and 
willing  to  endure  this  embargo  for  an  indefinite,  unlim- 
ited period ;  some  say  for  six  months ;  some  a  year, 
some  two  years.  The  gentleman  from  North  Carolina 
(Mr.  Macon)  told  us  that  he  preferred  three  years  of 
embargo  to  a  war.  And  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
(Mr.  Clopton)  said  expressly,  that  he  hoped  we  should 
never  allow  our  vessels  to  go  upon  the  ocean  again, 
until  the  orders  and  decrees  of  the  belligerents  were 
rescinded.  In  plain  English,  until  France  and  Great 


62  SPEECH    ON    FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

Britain  should,  in  their  great  condescension  permit. 
Good  Heavens  !  Mr.  Chairman,  are  men  mad  ?  Is  this 
House  touched  with  that  insanity  which  is  the  never- 
failing  precursor  of  the  intention  of  Heaven  to  destroy ! 
The  people  of  New  England,  after  eleven  months  depri- 
vation of  the  ocean,  to  be  commanded  still  longer  to 
abandon  it,  for  an  undefined  period ;  to  hold  their  un- 
alienable  rights,  at  the  tenure  of  the  will  of  Britain  or 
of  Bonaparte !  A  people,  commercial  in  all  aspects,  in 
all  their  relations,  in  all  their  hopes,  in  all  their  recol- 
lections of  the  past,  in  all  their  prospects  of  the  future  : 
a  people  whose  first  love  was  the  ocean,  the  choice  of 
their  childhood,  the  approbation  of  their  manly  years, 
the  most  precious  inheritance  of  their  fathers,  in  the 
midst  of  their  success,  in  the  moment  of  the  most  ex- 
quisite perception  of  commercial  prosperity,  to  be  com- 
manded to  abandon  it,  not  for  a  time  limited,  but  for  a 
time  unlimited ;  not  until  they  can  be  prepared  to 
defend  themselves  there  (for  that  is  not  pretended), 
but  until  their  rivals  recede  from  it ;  not  until  their 
necessities  require,  but  until  foreign  nations  permit !  I 
am  lost  in  astonishment,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  have  not 
words  to  express  the  matchless  absurdity  of  this  at- 
tempt. I  have  no  tongue  to  express  the  swift  and 
headlong  destruction  which  a  blind  perseverance  in 
such  a  system  must  bring  upon  this  nation. 

But  men  from  New  England,  representatives  on  this 
floor,  equally  with  myself  the  constitutional  guardians 
of  her  interests,  differ  from  me  in  these  opinions.  My 
honorable  colleague  (Mr.  Bacon)  took  occasion  in 
secret  session,  to  deny  that  there  did  exist  all  that  dis- 
content and  distress,  which  I  had  attempted  in  an 


SPEECH    ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS.  68 

humble  way  to  describe.  He  told  us  he  had  travelled 
in  Massachusetts,  that  the  people  were  not  thus  dissat- 
isfied, that  the  embargo  had  not  produced  any  such 
tragical  effects.  Really,  sir,  my  honorable  colleague 
has  travelled  all  the  way  from  Stockbridge  to  Hudson  ; 
from  Berkshire  to  Boston  ;  from  inn  to  inn  ;  from  county 
court  to  county  court ;  and  doubtless  he  collected  all 
that  important  information  which  an  acute  intelligence 
never  fails  to  retain  on  such  occasions.  He  found  tea, 
sugar,  salt,  West  India  rum,  and  molasses  dearer ;  beef, 
pork,  butter,  and  cheese  cheaper.  Reflection  enabled 
him  to  arrive  at  this  difficult  result,  that  in  this  way 
the  evil  and  the  good  of  the  embargo  equalize  one 
another.  But  has  my  honorable  colleague  travelled  on 
the  seaboard?  Has  he  witnessed  the  state  of  our 
cities  ?  Has  he  seen  our  ships  rotting  at  our  wharves, 
our  wharves  deserted,  our  stores  tenantless,  our  streets 
bereft  of  active  business  ;  industry  forsaking  her  beloved 
haunts,  arid  hope  fled  away  from  places  where  she  had 
from  earliest  time  been  accustomed  to  make  and  to  ful- 
fil her  most  precious  promises  ?  Has  he  conversed  with 
the  merchant,  and  heard  the  tale  of  his  embarrassments, 
—  his  capital  arrested  in  his  hands,  forbidden  by  your 
laws  to  resort  to  a  market,  with  property  four  times 
sufficient  to  discharge  all  his  engagements,  obliged  to 
hang  on  the  precarious  mercy  of  moneyed  institutions 
for  that  indulgence  which  preserves  him  from  stopping 
payment,  the  first  step  towards  bankruptcy  ?  Has  he 
conversed  with  our  mechanics?  Has  he  seen  them 
either  destitute  of  employment  or  obliged  to  seek  it  in 
labors  odious  to  them,  because  they  were  not  educated 
to  them  ?  That  mechanic,  who  the  day  before  this  em- 


64  SPEECH   ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

bargo  passed,  the  very  day  that  you  took  this  bit,  and 
rolled  it  like  a  sweet  morsel  under  your  tongue,  had 
more  business  than  he  had  hands  or  time  or  thought 
to  employ  in  it,  now  soliciting  at  reduced  prices 
that  employment  which  the  rich,  owing  to  the  uncer- 
tainty in  which  your  laws  have  involved  their  capital, 
cannot  afford.  I  could  heighten  this  picture.  I  could 
show  you  laboring  poor  in  the  almshouse,  and  will- 
ing industry,  dependent  upon  charity.  But  I  con- 
fine myself  to  particulars  which  have  fallen  under  my 
own  observation,  and  of  which  ten  thousand  suffering 
individuals  on  the  seaboard  of  New  England  are  living 
witnesses. 

Mr.  Chairman,  —  Other  gentlemen  must  take  their 
responsibilities  :  I  shall  take  mine.  This  embargo  must 
be  repealed.  You  cannot  enforce  it  for  any  important 
period  of  time  longer.  When  I  speak  of  your  inability 
to  enforce  this  law,  let  no  gentleman  misunderstand  me. 
I  mean  not  to  intimate  insurrections  or  open  defiances 
of  them.  Although  it  is  impossible  to  foresee  in  what 
acts  that  "oppression"  will  finally  terminate  which,  we 
are  told,  "  makes  wise  men  mad."  I  speak  of  an  inabil- 
ity resulting  from  very  different  causes. 

The  gentleman  from  North  Carolina  (Mr.  Macon), 
exclaimed  the  other  day  in  a  strain  of  patriotic  ardor, 
"What!  shall  not  our  laws  be  executed?  Shall  their 
authority  be  defied  ?  I  am  for  enforcing  them  at  every 
hazard."  I  honor  that  gentleman's  zeal ;  and  I  mean 
no  deviation  from  that  true  respect  I  entertain  for  him, 
when  I  tell  him  that,  in  this  instance,  "  his  zeal  is  not 
according  to  knowledge." 

I  ask  this  House,  is  there  no  control  to  its  authority, 


SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.         65 

is  there  no  limit  to  the  power  of  this  national  legisla- 
ture ?  I  hope  I  shall  offend  no  man,  when  I  intimate 
that  two  limits  exist,  —  nature  and  the  Constitution. 
Should  this  House  undertake  to  declare  that  this  atmos- 
phere should  no  longer  surround  us,  that  water  should 
cease  to  flow,  that  gravity  should  not  hereafter  operate, 
that  the  needle  should  not  vibrate  to  the  pole,  I  do  sup- 
pose, Mr.  Chairman,  —  sir,  I  mean  no  disrespect  to  the 
authority  of  this  House  ;  I  know  the  high  notions  some 
gentlemen  entertain  on  this  subject,  —  I  do  suppose, — 
sir,  I  hope  I  shall  not  offend,  —  I  think  I  may  venture 
to  affirm,  that  such  a  law  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing the  air  would  continue  to  circulate,  the  Mississippi, 
the  Hudson,  and  the  Potomac  would  hurl  their  floods 
to  the  ocean,  heavy  bodies  continue  to  descend,  and  the 
mysterious  magnet  hold  on  its  course  to  its  celestial 
cynosure. 

Just  as  utterly  absurd  and  contrary  to  nature  is  it,  to 
attempt  to  prohibit  the  people  of  New  England,  for  any 
considerable  length  of  time,  from  the  ocean.  Commerce 
is  not  only  associated  with  all  the  feelings,  the  habits, 
the  interests,  and  relations,  of  that  people,  but  the 
nature  of  our  soil  and  of  our  coasts,  the  state  of  our 
population  and  its  mode  of  distribution  over  our  terri- 
tory, renders  it  indispensable.  We  have  five  hundred 
miles  of  sea-coast ;  all  furnished  with  harbors,  bays, 
creeks,  rivers,  inlets,  basins,  with  every  variety  of  invi- 
tation to  the  sea,  with  every  species  of  facility  to  violate 
such  laws  as  these :  our  people  are  not  scattered  over 
an  immense  surface,  at  a  solemn  distance  from  each 
other,  in  lordly  retirement,  in  the  midst  of  extended 
plantations  and  intervening  wastes.  They  are  collected 


66  SPEECH  OX   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

on  the  margin  of  the  ocean,  by  the  sides  of  rivers,  at 
the  heads  of  bays,  looking  into  the  water  or  on  the  sur- 
face of  it  for  the  incitement  and  the  reward  of  their 
industry.  Among  a  people  thus  situated,  thus  edu- 
cated, thus  numerous,  laws  prohibiting  them  from  the 
exercise  of  their  natural  rights  will  have  a  binding 
effect  not  one  moment  longer  than  the  public  senti- 
ment supports  them.  Gentlemen  talk  of  twelve  reve- 
nue cutters  additional  to  enforce  the  embargo  laws. 
Multiply  the  number  by  twelve,  multiply  it  by  an  hun- 
dred, join  all  your  ships  of  war,  all  your  gunboats,  and 
all  your  militia,  in  despite  of  them  all,  such  laws  as 
these  are  of  no  avail  when  they  become  odious  to  public 
sentiment.  Continue  these  laws  any  considerable  time 
longer,  and  it  is  very  doubtful  if  you  will  have  officers 
to  execute,  juries  to  convict,  or  purchasers  to  bid  for 
your  confiscations.  Cases  have  begun  to  occur.  Ask 
your  revenue  officers,  and  they  will  tell  you  that  already 
at  public  sales  in  your  cities,  under  these  laws,  the 
owner  has  bought  his  property  at  less  than  four  per  cent 
upon  the  real  value.  Public  opinion  begins  to  look  with 
such  a  jealous  and  hateful  eye  upon  these  laws,  that 
even  self-interest  will  not  co-operate  to  enforce  their 
penalties. 

But  where  is  our  love  of  order  ?  Where  our  respect 
for  the  laws  ?  Let  legislators  beware  lest,  by  the  very 
nature  of  their  laws,  they  weaken  that  sentiment  of 
respect  for  them,  so  important  to  be  inspired,  and  so 
difficult  to  be  reinstated  when  it  has  once  been  driven 
from  the  mind.  Regulate  not  the  multitude  to  their 
ruin.  Disgust  not  men  of  virtue  by  the  tendency  of 
your  laws,  lest  when  they  cannot  yield  them  the  sane- 


SPEECH  ON   FOBEIGN  KELATIONS.  67 

tion  of  their  approbation,  the  enterprising  and  the 
necessitous  find  a  principal  check  upon  their  fears  of 
violating  them  removed.  It  is  not  enough  for  men  in 
place  to  exclaim,  "  the  worthless  part  of  society." 
Words  cannot  alter  the  nature  of  things.  You  cannot 
identify  the  violator  of  such  laws  as  these,  in  our  part 
of  the  country,  for  any  great  length  of  time,  with  the 
common  smuggler,  nor  bring  the  former  down  to  the 
level  of  the  latter.  The  reason  is  obvious.  You  bring 
the  duties  the  citizen  owes  to  society  into  competition, 
not  only  with  the  strongest  interests,  but,  which  is  more, 
with  the  most  sacred  private  obligations.  When  you 
present  to  the  choice  of  a  citizen,  bankruptcy,  a  total 
loss  of  the  accumulated  wealth  of  his  whole  life,  or  a 
violation  of  a  positive  law,  restrictive  of  the  exercise  of 
the  most  common  rights,  it  presents  to  him  a  most  criti- 
cal alternative.  I  will  not  say  how  sublime  casuists 
may  decide.  But  it  is  easy  to  foretell  that  nature  will 
plead  too  strong  in  the  bosom  to  make  obedience  long 
possible.  I  state  no  imaginary  case.  Thousands  in 
New  England  see  in  the  continuance  of  this  embargo  and 
in  obedience  to  it  irremediable  ruin  to  themselves  and 
families.  But  where  is  our  patriotism  ?  Sir,  you  call 
upon  patriotism  for  sacrifices  to  which  it  is  unequal ; 
and  require  its  operation  in  a  way  in  which  that  passion 
cannot  long  subsist.  Patriotism  is  a  great  comfort  to 
men  in  the  interior,  to  the  farmer  and  the  planter,  who 
are  denied  a  market  by  your  laws,  whose  local  situation 
is  such  that  they  can  neither  sell  their  produce,  nor 
scarcely  give  it  away,  and  who  are  made  to  believe  that 
their  privations  will  ultimately  redound  to  the  benefit  of 
the  country.  But  on  the  seaboard,  where  men  feel  not 


68  SPEECH    ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

only  their  annual  profit,  but  their  whole  capital  perish- 
ing, where  they  know  the  utter  inefficacy  of  your  laws 
to  coerce  foreign  nations,  and  their  utter  futility  as  a 
means  of  saving  our  own  property ;  to  such  laws  in  such 
a  situation,  patriotism  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  very  inactive 
assistant.  You  cannot  lay  a  man  upon  the  rack  and 
crack  his  muscles,  by  a  slow  torment,  and  call  patriotism 
to  soothe  the  sufferer. 

But  there  is  another  obstacle  to  a  long  and  effectual 
continuance  of  this  law,  —  the  doubt  which  hangs  over 
its  constitutionality.  I  know  I  shall  be  told  that  the 
sanction  of  the  judiciary  has  been  added  to  this  act  of 
the  legislature.  Sir,  I  honor  that  tribunal.  I  revere  the 
individual  whose  opinion  declared  in  this  instance  the 
constitutionality  of  the  law.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  ven- 
erate our  courts  of  justice  ;  it  is  one  thing  to  deem  this 
law  obligatory  upon  the  citizen,  while  it  has  all  these 
sanctions  ;  it  is  another,  on  this  floor,  in  the  high  court 
of  the  people's  privileges,  to  advocate  its  repeal  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  an  invasion  of  their  rights.  The  em- 
bargo laws  have  unquestionable  sanction.  They  are 
laws  of  this  land.  Yet,  who  shall  deny  to  a  representa- 
tive of  this  people  the  right,  in  their  own  favorite  tribu- 
nal, of  bringing  your  laws  to  the  test  of  the  principles 
of  the  Constitution  ? 

Is  there  any  principle  more  wise,  or  more  generally 
received  among  statesmen,  than  that  a  law,  in  propor- 
tion to  its  pressure  upon  the  people,  should  have  its 
basis  in  unquestionable  authority,  as  well  as  necessity? 
A  legislature  may  sport  with  the  rights  of  an  individual. 
It  may  violate  the  constitution  to  the  ruin  of  whole 
classes  of  men.  But  once  let  it  begin,  by  its  laws,  to 


SPEECH   ON  FOKEIGN   RELATIONS.  69 

crush  the  hopes  of  the  great  mass  of  the  citizens ;  let  it 
bring  every  eye  in  the  land  to  the  scrutiny  of  its  laws 
and  its  authority,  to  be  permanent  those  laws  must  pos- 
sess no  flaw  in  their  foundation. 

I  ask  in  what  page  of  the  Constitution  you  find  the 
power  of  laying  an  embargo  ?  Directly  given  it  is  no- 
where. You  have  it,  then,  by  construction  or  by  prece- 
dent. By  construction  of  the  power  to  regulate.  I  lay 
out  of  the  question  the  common-place  argument,  that 
regulation  cannot  mean  annihilation  ;  and  that  what  is 
annihilated  cannot  be  regulated.  I  ask  this  question, 
Can  a  power  be  ever  obtained  by  construction  which 
had  never  been  exercised  at  the  time  of  the  authority 
given  ;  the  like  of  which  had  not  only  never  been  seen, 
but  the  idea  of  which  had  never  entered  into  human 
imagination,  I  will  not  say  in  this  country,  but  in  the 
world  ?  Yet  such  is  this  power  which  by  construction 
you  assume  to  exercise.  Never  before  did  society  wit- 
ness a  total  prohibition  of  all  intercourse  like  this  in 
a  commercial  nation.  Did  the  people  of  the  United 
States  invest  this  House  with  a  power  of  which,  at  the 
time  of  investment,  that  people  had  not  and  could  not 
have  had  any  idea  ?  for  even  in  works  of  fiction  it  had 
never  existed.  But  we  have  precedent.  Precedent  is 
directly  against  you.  For  the  only  precedent,  that  in 
1794,  was  in  conformity  to  the  embargo  power,  as  it 
had  been  exercised  in  other  countries.  It  was  limited. 
Its  duration  was  known.  The  power  passed  from  the 
representatives  of  this  House  only  for  sixty  days.  In 
that  day  the  legislature  would  not  trust  even  Washing- 
ton, amid  all  his  well-earned  influence,  with  any  other 
than  a  limited  power.  But  away,  sir,  with  such  deduc- 

4 


70  SPEECH   ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

tions  as  these  :  I  appeal  to  the  history  of  the  times  when 
this  national  compact  was  formed.  This  Constitution 
grew  out  of  our  necessities,  and  it  was  in  every  stage  of 
its  formation  obstructed  by  the  jealousies  and  diverse 
interests  of  the  different  States.  The  gentlemen  of  the 
South  had  certain  species  of  property  with  the  control 
of  which  they  would  not  trust  us  in  the  North.  And 
wisely  ;  for  we  neither  appreciate  it  as  they  do,  nor  could 
regulate  it  safely  for  them.  In  the  east  our  sentiment 
concerning  their  interest  in  commerce,  and  their  power 
to  understand  its  true  interests,  was  in  a  great  degree 
similar.  The  writings  of  that  period  exhibit  this  jeal- 
ousy, and  the  fears  excited  by  it  formed  in  that  portion 
of  the  United  States  a  formidable  objection  to  its  adop- 
tion. In  this  state  of  things,  would  the  people  of  New 
England  consent  to  convey  to  a  legislature,  constituted 
as  this  in  time  must  be,  a  power,  not  only  to  regulate 
commerce,  but  to  annihilate  it,  for  a  time  unlimited,  or 
altogether?  Suppose,  in  1788,  in  the  Convention  of 
Massachusetts,  while  debating  upon  the  adoption  of  this 
Constitution,  some  hoary  sage  had  arisen,  and  with  an 
eye  looking  deep  into  futurity,  with  a  prophet's  ken, 
had  thus  addressed  the  assembly.  "  Fellow-citizens 
of  Massachusetts,  to  what  ruin  are  you  hastening  ? 
Twenty  years  shall  not  elapse  before,  under  a  secret 
and  dubious  construction  of  the  instrument  now  pro- 
posed for  your  adoption,  your  commerce  shall  be  anni- 
hilated ;  the  whole  of  your  vast  trade  prohibited  ;  not 
a  boat  shall  cross  your  harbor,  not  a  coaster  shall  be 
permitted  to  go  out  of  your  ports,  unless  under  permis- 
sion of  the  distant  head  of  your  nation,  and  after 
a  grievous  visitation  of  a  custom-house  officer  ?  "  Sir, 


SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.        71 

does  any  man  believe  that,  with  such  a  prospect  into 
futurity,  the  people  of  that  State  would  have  for  one 
moment  listened  to  its  adoption  ?  Rather  would  they 
not  have  rejected  it  with  indignation  ?  Yet  this,  now, 
is  not  prophecy.  It  is  history.  But  this  law  is  not  per- 
petual, it  is  said.  Show  the  limit  to  it.  Show  by  what 
terms  it  can  be  made  more  perpetual. 

The  universal  opinion  entertained  in  New  England 
among  commercial  men  of  the  total  imbecility  of  this 
law,  as  a  measure  of  coercion  of  either  belligerent,  is 
another  cause  pregnant  with  discontent  in  that  country. 
It  may  do  well  enough  to  amuse  ourselves  with  calcula- 
tions of  this  kind  on  this  floor ;  but  intelligent  mer- 
chants, masters  of  vessels,  seamen,  who  are  acquainted 
with  the  West  Indies,  and  with  the  European  dominions 
of  both  powers,  speak  with  sovereign  contempt  of  the 
idea  of  starving  either  of  these  powers  into  submission 
to  our  plans  of  policy.  The  entire  failure  of  this 
scheme,  after  a  trial  of  eleven  months,  would,  I  should 
suppose,  have  satisfied  the  most  obstinate  of  its  hope- 
lessness. Yet  it  is  revived  again  at  this  session.  We 
are  told  from  high  authority  of  the  failure  of  the  wheat 
harvest  in  Great  Britain,  and  this  has  been  urged  as  a 
farther  reason  for  a  continuance  of  this  measure.  Have 
gentlemen  who  press  this  argument  informed  them- 
selves how  exceedingly  small  a  proportion  our  export  of 
wheat  bears  to  the  whole  consumption  of  the  British 
dominions  ?  Our  whole  export  to  all  the  world  of 
wheat  in  its  natural  and  manufactured  state  does  not 
amount  to  seven  millions  of  bushels.  The  whole  con- 
sumption of  the  British  dominions  exceeds  one  hundred 
and  fifty  millions.  Let  gentlemen  consider  what  a 


72  SPEECH   ON  FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

small  object  this  amount  is,  in  a  national  point  of  view, 
even  could  the  attainment  of  the  whole  supply  be 
assumed,  as  the  condition  of  her  yielding  to  the  terms 
we  should  prescribe.  Are  not  the  borders  of  the  Black 
Sea,  the  coast  of  Africa,  and  South  America,  all  wheat 
countries,  open  to  her  commerce  ? 

But  the  embargo  saves  our  resources.  It  may  justly 
be  questioned,  whether,  in  this  point  of  view,  the  em- 
bargo is  so  effectual  as,  at  first,  men  are  led  to  imagine. 
It  may  be  doubted  if  the  seed  wheat  for  this  harvest  is 
not  worth  more  than  the  whole  crop.  I  say  nothing  of 
the  embarrassments  of  our  commerce,  of  the  loss  of  our 
seamen,  of  the  sunken  value  of  real  estate.  But  our 
dead,  irredeemable  loss,  by  this  embargo,  during  the 
present  year,  cannot  be  stated  at  less  than  ten  per 
cent  on  account  of  interest  and  profit  on  the  whole  ex- 
port of  our  country,  —  that  is,  on  the  one  hundred  and 
eight  millions,  —  ten  million  eight  hundred  thousand 
dollars. 

Nor  can  our  loss  upon  a  million  tons  of  unemployed 
shipping  be  stated  at  less  than  at  twenty  dollars  the 
ton,  twenty  millions  of  dollars.  Thirty  millions  of 
dollars  is  a  serious  outfit  for  any  voyage  of  salvation, 
and  the  profit  ought  to  be  very  unquestionable,  before  a 
wise  man  would  be  persuaded  to  renew  or  prolong  it. 
Besides,  is  it  true  that  the  articles  the  embargo  retains 
are  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term  resources  ? 
I  suppose  that  by  this  word,  so  ostentatiously  used,  on 
all  occasions,  it  is  meant  to  convey  the  idea  that  the 
produce  thus  retained  in  the  country  will  be  a  resource 
for  use  or  defence  in  case  of  war,  or  any  other  misfor- 
tune happening  to  it.  But  is  this  true  ?  Our  exports 


SPEECH   ON  FOEEIGN  BELATIONS.  73 

are  surplus  products,  —  what  we  raise  beyond  what  we 
consume.  Because  we  cannot  use  them,  they  are  sur- 
plus. Of  course  in  this  country  they  have  little  or  no 
value  in  use,  but  only  in  exchange.  Take  away  the 
power  of  exchange,  and  how  can  they  be  called  re- 
sources ?  Every  year  produces  sufficient  for  its  own 
consumption,  and  a  surplus.  Suppose  an  embargo  of 
ten  years,  —  will  gentlemen  seriously  contend  that  the 
accumulating  surplus  of  fish,  cotton,  tobacco,  and  flour 
would  be  a  resource  for  any  national  exigencies  ?  We 
cannot  consume  it,  because  the  annual  product  is  equal 
to  our  annual  consumption.  Our  embargo  forbids  us  to 
sell  it.  How,  then,  is  it  a  resource  ;  are  we  stronger  or 
richer  for  it  ?  The  reverse,  we  are  weaker  and  poorer. 
Weaker  by  all  the  loss  of  motive  to  activity,  by  all  the 
diminution  of  the  industry  of  the  country,  which  such  a 
deprivation  of  the  power  to  exchange  produces.  And 
what  can  be  poorer  than  he  who  is  obliged  to  keep 
what  he  cannot  use,  and  to  labor  for  that  which  profiteth 
not? 

But  the  inequality  of  the  pressure  of  this  measure  of 
embargo  upon  the  people  of  the  Eastern  States  is  an- 
other source  of  great  discontent  with  it.  Every  gentle- 
man who  has  spoken  upon  the  subject  has  seemed  to 
take  it  for  granted  that  this  was  a  burden  which  pressed 
equally.  But  is  this  the  case  ?  I  shall  confine  myself 
to  a  single  fact,  although  the  point  admits  of  other  elu- 
cidations. Compare  the  State  of  Virginia  with  that  of 
Massachusetts,  in  the  single  particular  of  the  amount  of 
capital  embarrassed  by  this  law.  Virginia  with  a  popu- 
lation, according  to  the  last  census,  of  nine  hundred 
thousand  souls,  has  four  million  seven  hundred  thou- 


74  SPEECH   ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

sand  dollars  in  exports,  forty  thousand  eight  hundred 
tons  of  registered  shipping  at  thirty  dollars  the  ton, 
amounting  to  one  million  seven  hundred  dollars  in 
value  ;  constituting  an  aggregate  capital  of  six  millions 
of  dollars,  obstructed  by  this  embargo.  Massachusetts, 
on  the  other  hand,  has  in  exports  twenty  millions  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars,  and  three  hundred  and  six 
thousand  tons  of  registered  shipping,  equal  nearly  to 
ten  millions  of  dollars,  in  value  ;  constituting  an  aggre- 
gate of  capital,  in  Massachusetts,  equal  to  thirty  mil- 
lions of  dollars,  obstructed  by  this  law.  By  the  last 
census,  the  population  of  Massachusetts  is  about  six 
hundred  thousand  souls.  So  that  in  Virginia,  nine 
hundred  thousand  souls  have  to  bear  a  pressure  of 
embarrassed  capital  equal  to  six  millions  of  dollars,  and 
in  Massachusetts  six  hundred  thousand  souls  a  pressure 
of  thirty  millions.  To  equalize  the  pressure  of  Virginia 
with  Massachusetts,  the  capital  of  the  former  ought  to 
be  forty -five  millions  instead  of  six  millions.  I  wish 
not  to  bring  into  view  any  unpleasant  comparisons,  but 
when  gentlemen  wonder  at  our  complaints  they  ought 
rightly  to  appreciate  their  causes.  The  pressure  result- 
ing from  the  embarrassments  of  this  immense  capital  is 
the  more  sensibly  felt,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  divided  in 
great  masses  among  rich  individuals,  but  in  moderate 
portions  among  the  middling  classes  of  our  citizens,  who 
have  many  of  them  the  earnings  of  a  whole  life  invested 
in  single  articles  destined  for  a  foreign  market,  from 
which  your  embargo  alone  prohibits  them. 

It  is  in  vain  to  say  that  if  the  embargo  was  raised 
there  would  be  no  market.  The  merchants  understand 
that  subject  better  than  you  ;  and  the  eagerness  with 


SPEECH   ON  FOKEIGN   EELATIONS.  75 

which  preparations  to  load  were  carried  on  previous  to 
the  commencement  of  this  session  speaks,  in  a  language 
not  to  be  mistaken,  their  opinion  of  the  foreign  markets. 
But  it  has  been  asked  in  debate,  "  Will  not  Massachu- 
setts, the  cradle  of  liberty,  submit  to  such  privations  ?  " 
An  embargo  liberty  was  never  cradled  in  Massachusetts. 
Our  liberty  was  not  so  much  a  mountain  as  a  sea 
nymph.  She  was  free  as  air.  She  could  swim,  or  she 
could  run.  The  ocean  was  her  cradle.  Our  fathers 
met  her  as  she  came,  like  the  goddess  of  beauty,  from 
the  waves.  They  caught  her  as  she  was  sporting  on 
the  beach.  They  courted  her  whilst  she  was  spreading 
her  nets  upon  the  rocks.  But  an  embargo  liberty,  —  a 
hand-cuffed  liberty  ;  a  liberty  in  fetters  ;  a  liberty  trav- 
ersing between  the  four  sides  of  a  prison  and  beating 
her  head  against  the  walls,  is  none  of  our  offspring. 
We  abjure  the  monster.  Its  parentage  is  all  inland. 

The  gentleman  from  North  Carolina  (Mr  Macon) 
exclaimed  the  other  day,  "  Where  is  the  spirit  of  '76  ?  " 
Aye,  sir ;  where  is  it  ?  Would  to  heaven,  that  at  our 
invocation  it  would  condescend  to  alight  on  this  floor. 
But  let  gentlemen  remember  that  the  spirit  of  '76  was 
not  a  spirit  of  empty  declaration,  or  of  abstract  proposi- 
tions. It  did  not  content  itself  with  non-importation 
acts  or  non-intercourse  laws.  It  was  a  spirit  of  active 
preparation,  of  dignified  energy.  It  studied  both  to 
know  our  rights  and  to  devise  the  effectual  means  of 
maintaining  them.  In  all  the  annals  of  '76,  you  will 
find  no  such  degrading  doctrine  as  that  maintained  in 
this  report.  It  never  presented  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States  the  alternative  of  war  or  a  suspension  of 
our  rights,  and  recommended  the  latter  rather  than  to 


76  SPEECH    ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

incur  the  risk  of  the  former.  What  was  the  language 
of  that  period  in  one  of  the  addresses  of  Congress  to 
Great  Britain  ?  "  You  attempt  to  reduce  us,  by  the 
sword,  to  base  and  abject  submission.  On  the  sword, 
therefore,  we  rely  for  protection."  In  that  day  there 
were  no  alternatives  presented  to  dishearten,  —  no 
abandonment  of  our  rights  under  the  pretence  of  main- 
taining them,  —  no  gaining  the  battle  by  running 
away.  In  the  whole  history  of  that  period  there  are  no 
such  terms  as  "  embargo,  —  dignified  retirement,  —  try- 
ing who  can  do  each  other  the  most  harm."  At  that 
time  we  had  a  navy,  that  name  so  odious  to  the  influ- 
ences of  the  present  day.  Yes,  sir,  in  1776,  though  but 
in  our  infancy,  we  had  a  navy  scouring  our  coasts,  and 
defending  our  commerce,  which  was  never  for  one 
moment  wholly  suspended.  In  1776  we  had  an  army 
also  ;  and  a  glorious  army  it  was  !  not  composed  of 
men  halting  from  the  stews,  or  swept  from  the  jails,  but 
of  the  best  blood,  the  real  yeomanry  of  the  country, 
noble  cavaliers,  men  without  fear  and  without  reproach. 
We  had  such  an  army  in  1776,  and  Washington  at  its 
head.  We  have  an  army  in  1808,  and  a  head  to  it. 

I  will  not  humiliate  those  who  lead  the  fortunes  of 
the  nation  at  the  present  day  \yy  any  comparison  with 
the  great  men  of  that  period.  But  I  recommend  the 
advocates  of  the  present  system  of  public  measures  to 
study  well  the  true  spirit  of  1776,  before  they  venture 
to  call  it  in  aid  of  their  purposes.  It  may  bring  in  its 
train  some  recollections  not  suited  to  give  ease  or  hope 
to  their  bosoms.  I  beg  gentlemen  who  are  so  frequent 
in  their  recurrence  to  that  period  to  remember  that, 
among  the  causes  which  led  to  a  separation  from  Great 


SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.        77 

Britain,  the  following  are  enumerated,  —  unnecessary 
restrictions  upon  trade ;  cutting  off  commercial  inter- 
course between  the  colonies ;  embarrassing  our  fish- 
eries ;  wantonly  depriving  our  citizens  of  necessaries  ; 
invasion  of  private  property  by  governmental  edicts  ; 
the  authority  of  the  commancler-in-chief,  and  under  him 
of  the  brigadier-general,  being  rendered  supreme  in  the 
civil  government ;  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  army 
made  governor  of  a  colony  ;  citizens  transferred  from 
their  native  country  for  trial.  Let  gentlemen  beware 
how  they  appeal  to  the  spirit  of  '76,  lest  it  come  with 
the  aspect,  not  of  a  friend,  but  of  a  tormentor ;  lest 
they  find  a  warning,  when  they  look  for  support,  and 
instead  of  encouragement  they  are  presented  with  an 
awful  lesson. 

But  repealing  the  embargo  will  be  submission  to  trib- 
ute. The  popular  ear  is  fretted  with  this  word  "  tribute." 
And  an  odium  is  attempted  to  be  thrown  upon  those 
who  are  indignant  at  this  abandonment  of  their  rights, 
by  representing  them  as  the  advocates  of  tribute.  Sir, 
who  advocates  it  ?  No  man,  in  this  country,  I  believe. 
This  outcry  about  tribute  is  the  veriest  bugbear  that 
was  ever  raised,  in  order  to  persuade  men  to  quit  rights 
which  God  and  nature  had  given  them.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  scarce  possible  that,  if  left  to  himself,  the 
interest  of  the  merchant  could  ever  permit  him  to  pay 
the  British  re-exportation  duty,  .denominated  tribute. 
France,  under  penalty  of  confiscation,  prohibits  our 
vessels  from  receiving  a  visit  from  an  English  ship,  or 
touching  at  an  English  port.  In  this  state  of  things, 
England  pretends  to  permit  us  to  export  to  France  cer- 
tain articles,  paying  her  a  duty.  The  statement  of  the 


78        SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS. 

case  shows  the  futility  of  the  attempt.  Who  will  pay 
a  duty  to  England  for  permission  to  go  to  France  to  be 
confiscated  ?  But,  suppose  there  is  a  jnistake  in  this, 
and  that  it  may  be  the  interest  of  the  merchant  to  pay 
such  duty,  for  the  purpose  of  going  to  certain  destruc- 
tion, have  not  you  full  powers  over  this  matter?  Can- 
not you,  by  pains  and  penalties,  prohibit  the  merchant 
from  the  payment  of  such  a  duty  ?  No  man  will  ob- 
struct you.  There  is,  as  I  believe,  but  one  opinion 
upon  this  subject :  I  hope,  therefore,  that  gentlemen 
will  cease  this  outcry  about  tribute. 

However,  suppose  that  the  payment  of  this  duty  is 
inevitable,  which  it  certainly  is  not.  Let  me  ask,  is 
embargo  independence  ?  Deceive  not  yourselves.  It 
is  palpable  submission.  Gentlemen  exclaim,  Great 
Britain  "smites  us  on  one  cheek;"  and  what  does  ad- 
ministration ?  "  It  turns  the  other  also."  Gentlemen 
say,  Great  Britain  is  a  robber;  she  "  takes  our  cloak ;  " 
and  what  say  administration  ?  "  Let  her  take  our  coat 
also."  France  and  Great  Britain  requires  you  to  relin- 
quish a  part  of  your  commerce,  and  you  yield  it  entirely. 
Sir,  this  conduct  may  be  the  way  to  dignity  and  honor 
in  another  world,  but  it  will  never  secure  safety  and 
independence  in  this. 

At  every  corner  of  this  great  city  we  meet  some  gen- 
tlemen of  the  majority,  wringing  their  hands  and  ex- 
claiming, "  What  shall  we  do  ?  Nothing  but  embargo 
will  save  us.  Remove  it,  and  what  shall  we  do?  "  Sir, 
it  is  not  for  me,  an  humble  and  uninfluential  individual, 
at  an  awful  distance  from  the  predominant  influences, 
to  suggest  plans  of  government.  But,  to  my  eye,  the 
path  of  our  duty  is  as  distinct  as  the  milky  way  ;  all 


SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.         79 

studded  with  living  sapphires ;  glowing  with  cumulat- 
ing light.  It  is  the  path  of  active  preparation,  of  dig- 
nified energy.  It  is  the  path  of  1776.  It  consists,  not 
in  abandoning  our  rights,  but  in  supporting  them,  as 
they  exist,  and  where  they  exist,  —  on  the  ocean,  as 
well  as  on  the  land.  It  consists,  in  taking  the  nature 
of  things  as  the  measure  of  the  rights  of  your  citizens, 
not  the  orders  and  decrees  of  imperious  foreigners. 
Give  what  protection  you  can.  Take  no  counsel  of 
fear.  Your  strength  will  increase  with  the  trial,  and 
prove  greater  than  you  are  now  aware. 

But  I  shall  be  told,  "  This  may  lead  to  war."  I  ask, 
"  Are  we  now  at  peace  ?  "  Certainly  not,  unless  retir- 
ing from  insult  be  peace,  unless  shrinking  under  the 
lash  be  peace.  The  surest  way  to  prevent  war  is  not  to 
fear  it.  The  idea  that  nothing  on  earth  is  so  dreadful 
as  war  is  inculcated  too  studiously  among  us.  Dis- 
grace is  worse.  Abandonment  of  essential  rights  is 
worse. 

Sir,  I  could  not  refrain  from  seizing  the  first  opportu- 
nity of  spreading  before  this  House  the  sufferings  and 
exigencies  of  New  England  under  this  embargo.  Some 
gentlemen  may  deem  it  not  strictly  before  us.  In  my 
opinion,  it  is  necessarily.  For,  if  the  idea  of  the  com- 
mittee be  correct,  and  embargo  is  resistance,  then  this 
resolution  sanctions  its  continuance.  If,  on  the  con- 
trary, as  I  contend,  embargo  is  submission,  then  this 
resolution  is  a  pledge  of  its  repeal. 


SECOND    SPEECH 

ON  THE  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  FOREIGN 
RELATIONS;  IN  REPLY  TO  THE  OBSERVATIONS 
OF  MR.  BACON. 

DEC.  7,  1808. 


SECOND   SPEECH 

ON  THE  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  FOREIGN 
RELATIONS;  IN  REPLY  TO  THE  OBSERVATIONS  OF 
MR.  BACON. 

DEC.  7,  1808. 


[THE  speech  of  the  28th  of  November  made  Mr.  Quincy  for 
the  time  being  what  Daniel  O'Connell  said  of  himself,  "  the  best 
abused  man  living,"  both  in  Congress  and  by  the  Democratic 
press  throughout  the  country.  He  was  consoled,  however,  by 
Federal  praise,  quite  as  warm  as  the  Democratic  censure.  On 
the  7th  of  the  next  month  he  took  or  made  occasion  for  the  fol- 
lowing speech,  in  reply  to  his  chief  assailants.  —  ED.] 

MB.  SPEAKER,  —  I  offer  myself  to  the  view  of  this 
House  with  very  sensible  embarrassment,  in  attempting 
to  follow  the  honorable  member  from  Tennessee  (Mr. 
Campbell),  —  a  gentleman  who  holds  so  distinguished  a 
station  on  this  floor,  through  thy  blessing,  Mr.  Speaker, 
on  his  talents  and  industry.  I  place  myself,  with  much 
reluctance,  in  competition  with  this  our  great  political 
JEneas,  —  an  illustrious  leader  of  antiquity,  whom  in  his 
present  relations,  and  with  his  present  projects,  the  gen- 
tleman from  Tennessee  not  a  little  resembles.  Since, 
in  order  to  evade  the  ruin  impending  over  our  cities, 
taking  my  honorable  colleague  (Mr.  Bacon)  by  one  hand, 
and  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Maryland  (Mr.  Mont- 
gomery) by  the  other,  little  lulus,  and  wife  Creusa,  he 


84  SECOND    SPEECH   ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

is  posting  away  into  the   woods,  with  Father  Anchises 
and  all  the  household  gods. 

When  I  had  the  honor  of  addressing  this  House,  a 
few  days  ago,  I  touched  this  famous  report  of  our  com- 
mittee on  foreign  relations,  perhaps,  a  little  too  carelessly; 
perhaps,  I  handled  it  a  little  too  roughly,  considering 
its  tender  age  and  the  manifest  delicacy  of  its  con- 
stitution. But,  sir,  I  had  no  idea  of  affecting  very 
exquisitely  the  sensibilities  of  any  gentleman.  I  thought 
that  this  was  a  common  report  of  one  of  our  ordinary 
committees,  which  I  had  a  right  to  canvass,  or  to  slight, 
to  applaud,  or  to  censure,  without  raising  any  extraor- 
dinary concern,  either  here  or  elsewhere.  But,  from  the 
general  excitement  which  my  inconsiderate  treatment 
of  this  subject  occasions,  I  fear  that  I  have  been  mis- 
taken. This  can  be  no  mortal  fabric,  Mr.  Speaker.  This 
must  be  that  image  which  fell  down  from  Jupiter,  — 
present  or  future.  Surely  nothing  but  a  being  of 
celestial  origin  would  raise  such  tumult  in  minds 
attempered  like  those  which  lead  the  destinies  of 
this  House. 

Sir,  I  thought  that  this  report  had  been  a  common 
piece  of  wood,  —  "  Inutile  lignum"  Sir,  just  such  a  piece 
of  wood  as  any  day  laborer  might  have  hewed  out,  in  an 
hour,  had  he  health  and  a  hatchet.  But  it  seems  that 
our  honorable  chairman  of  the  committee  of  foreign 
relations  "  maluit  esse  Deum"  Well,  sir,  I  have  no 
objections.  If  the  workmen  will,  a  god  it  shall  be. 
I  only  wish,  when  gentlemen  bring  their  sacred  things 
upon  this  floor,  that  they  would  "  blow  a  trumpet  before 
them,  as  the  heathens  do,"  on  such  occasions,  to  the 
end  that  all  true  believers  may  prepare  themselves  to 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.     85 

adore  and  tremble,  and  that  all  unbelievers  may  turn 
aside,  and  not  disturb  their  devotions. 

I  assure  gentlemen  that  I  meant  to  commit  no  sacri- 
lege. I  had  no  intention,  sir,  of  canvassing  very  strictly 
this  report.  I  supposed  that,  when  it  had  been  published 
and  circulated,  it  had  answered  all  the  purposes  of  its 
authors,  and  I  felt  no  disposition  to  interfere  with  them. 
But  the  House  is  my  witness  that  I  am  compelled,  by 
the  clamor  raised,  on  all  sides,  by  the  friends  of  ad- 
ministration, to  descend  to  particulars,  and  to  examine  it 
somewhat  minutely. 

My  honorable  colleague  (Mr.  Bacon)  was  pleased  the 
other  day  to  assert :  .  .  .  Sir,  in  referring  to  his  observa- 
tions on  a  former  occasion,  I  beg  the  House  not  to 
imagine  that  I  am  about  to  follow  him.  No,  sir,  I 
will  neither  follow  nor  imitate  him.  I  hang  upon  no 
man's  skirts.  I  run  barking  at  no  man's  heel.  I  can- 
vass principles  and  measures,  solely  with  a  view  to  the 
great  interests  of  my  country.  The  idea  of  personal 
victory  is  lost  in  the  total  absorption  of  sense  and  mind 
in  the  importance  of  impending  consequences.  I  say 
he  was  pleased  to  assert  that  I  had  dealt  in  general 
allegations  against  this  report,  without  pointing  out  any 
particular  objection.  And  the  honorable  chairman  (Mr. 
Campbell)  has  reiterated  the  charge.  Both  have  treated 
this  alleged  omission  with  no  little  asperity.  Yet, 
sir,  it  is  very  remarkable  that,  so  far  from  dealing 
in  general  allegations,  I  explicitly  stated  my  objections. 
The  alternatives  presented  by  the  report  —  war  or  sus- 
pension of  our  rights,  and  the  recommendation  of  the 
latter,  rather  than  take  the  risk  of  the  former  —  I  ex- 
pressly censured.  I  went  farther,  —  I  compared  these 


86          SECOND   SPEECH   ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS. 

alternatives  with  an  extract  from  an  address  made  by 
the  first  Continental  Congress  to  the  inhabitants  of  Great 
Britain,  and  attempted  to  show*,  by  way  of  contrast, 
what  I  thought  the  disgraceful  spirit  of  the  report. 
Yet  these  gentlemen  complain  that  I  dealt  in  general 
allegations.  Before  I  close,  sir,  they  will  have,  I  hope, 
no  reason  to  repeat  such  objections.  I  trust  I  shall  be 
particular  to  their  content. 

Before  entering  upon  an  examination  of  this  report,  it 
may  be  useful  to  recollect  how  it  originated. 

By  the  3d  section  of  the  2d  article  of  the  Constitution, 
it  is  declared  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
"  shall,  from  time  to  time,  give  to  Congress  information 
of  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  recommend  to  their  con- 
sideration such  measures  as  he  shall  judge  necessary  and 
expedient."  It  is,  then,  the  duty  of  the  President  to 
recommend  such  measures  as  in  his  judgment  Congress 
ought  to  adopt.  A  great  crisis  is  impending  over  our 
country.  It  is  a  time  of  alarm  and  peril  and  distress. 
How  has  the  President  performed  this  constitutional 
duty  ?  Why,  after  recapitulating,  in  a  formal  message, 
our  dangers  and  his  trials,  he  expresses  his  confidence 
that  we  shall,  "  with  an  unerring  regard  to  the  essential 
rights  and  interests  of  the  nation,  weigh  and  compare 
the  painful  alternatives  out  of  which  a  choice  is  to  be 
made,"  and  that  "  the  alternative  chosen  will  be  main- 
tained with  fortitude  and  patriotism."  In  this  way  our 
chief  magistrate  performs  his  duty.  A  storm  is  ap- 
proaching,—  the  captain  calls  his  choice  hands  upon 
deck,  leaves  the  rudder  swinging,  and  sets  the  crew  to 
scuffle  about  alternatives.  This  message,  pregnant  with 
nondescript  alternatives,  is  received  by  this  House. 


SECOND   SPEECH   ON  FOREIGN  EELATIONS.          87 

And  what  do  we  ?  Why,  constitute  a  great  committee 
of  foreign  relations,  and,  lest  they  should  not  have  their 
attention  completely  occupied  by  the  pressing  exigencies 
of  those  with  France  and  Great  Britain,  they  are  en- 
dowed with  the  whole  mass,  British,  Spanish,  and 
French ;  Barbary  powers  and  Indian  neighbors.  And 
what  does  this  committee  ?  Why,  after  seven  days' 
solemn  conclave,  they  present  to  this  House  an  illustri- 
ous report,  loaded  with  alternatives,  —  nothing  but 
alternatives.  The  cold  meat  of  the  palace  is  hashed  and 
served  up  to  us,  piping  hot,  from  our  committee  room. 

In  considering  this  report,  I  shall  pay  no  attention  to 
either  its  beginning  or  its  conclusion.  The  former  con- 
sists of  shavings  from  old  documents,  and  the  latter  of 
birdlime  for  new  converts.  The  twelfth  page  is  the 
heart  of  this  report.  That  I  mean  to  canvass.  And  I  do 
assert  that  there  is  not  one  of  all  the  principal  positions 
contained  in  it  which  is  true,  in  the  sense  and  to  the 
extent  assumed  by  the  committee.  Let  us  examine 
each  separately. 

"  Your  committee  can  perceive  no  other  alternative 
but  abject  and  degrading  submission,  —  war  with  both 
nations,  or  a  continuance  arid  enforcement  of  the  pres- 
ent suspension  of  our  commerce."  Here  is  a  trifurcate 
alternative.  Let  us  consider  each  branch,  and  see  if 
either  be  true  in  the  sense  assumed  by  the  committee. 
The  first,  "  abject  and  degrading  submission,"  takes  two 
things  for  granted,  —  that  trading,  pending  the  edicts  of 
France  and  Great  Britain,  is  submission  ;  and  next,  that 
it  is  submission  in  its  nature,  abject  and  degrading. 
Neither  is  true.  It  is  not  submission  to  trade,  pending 
those  edicts,  because  they  do  not  command  you  to  trade. 


88     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS. 

They  command  you  not  to  trade.  When  you  refuse  to 
trade  you  submit,  not  when  you  carry  on  that  trade,  as  far 
as  you  can,  which  they  prohibit.  *Again,  it  is  not  true  that 
such  trading  is  abject  and  disgraceful,  and  that,  too,' upon 
the  principles  avowed  by  the  advocates  of  this  report. 
Trading,  while  these  edicts  are  suspended  over  our  com- 
merce, is  submission,  say  they,  because  we  have  not 
physical  force  to  resist  the  power  of  these  belligerents  ; 
of  course,  if  we  trade,  we  must  submit  to  these  restric- 
tions ;  not  having  power  to  evade,  or  break  through 
them.  Now,  admit  for  the  sake  of  argument  what, 
however,  in  fact  I  deny,  that  the  belligerents  have  the 
power  to  carry  into  effect  their  decrees  so  perfectly  that, 
by  reason  of  the  orders  of  Great  Britain,  we  are  physi- 
cally disabled  from  going  to  France,  and  that  by  the 
edicts  of  France,  we  are,  in  like  manner,  disabled  from 
going  to  Great  Britain.  If  such  be  our  case,  in  relation 
to  these  powers,  the  question  is,  whether  submitting  to 
exercise  all  the  trade  which  remains  to  us,  notwith- 
standing the  edicts,  is  "  abject  and  degrading." 

In  the  first  place,  I  observe  that  submission  is  not  to 
beings  constituted  as  we  are  always  "  abject  and  degrad- 
ing." We  submit  to  the  decrees  of  providence,  —  to  the 
laws  of  our  nature,  —  absolute  weakness  submits  to  abso- 
lute power,  —  and  there  is  nothing,  in  such  submission, 
shameful  or  degrading.  It  is  no  dishonor,  for  finite,  not 
to  contend  with  infinite.  There  is  no  loss  of  reputation 
if  creatures  such  as  men  perform  not  impossibilities.  If, 
then,  it  be  true,  in  the  sense  asserted  by  some  of  the 
advocates  of  this  report,  that  it  is  physically  impossible 
for  us  to  trade  with  France  and  Great  Britain  and  their 
dependencies  by  reason  of  these  edicts,  still  there  is 


SECOND    SPEECH   ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS.  89 

nothing  "  abject  or  degrading "  in  carrying  on  such 
trade  as  these  edicts  leave  open  to  us,  let  it  be  never  so 
small  or  so  trifling  ;  which,  however,  it  might  be  easily 
shown,  as  it  has  been,  that  it  is  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other.  Sir,  in  this  point  of  view,  it  is  no  more  disgrace- 
ful for  us  to  trade  to  Sweden,  to  China,  to  the  North- 
West  coast,  or  to  Spain  and  her  dependencies,  not  one 
of  which  countries  is  now  included  in  those  edicts,  than 
it  is  disgraceful  for  us  to  walk,  because  we  are  unable 
to  fly ;  no  more  than  it  is  shameful  for  man  to  use  and 
enjoy  the  surface  of  this  globe,  because  he  has  not  at 
his  command  the  whole  circle  of  nature,  and  cannot 
range  at  will  over  all  the  glorious  spheres  which 
constitute  the  universe. 

The  gentleman  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Campbell)  called 
upon  us  just  now  to  tell  him  what  was  disgraceful  sub- 
mission, if  carrying  on  commerce  under  these  restrictions 
was  not  such  submission.  I  will  tell  that  gentleman. 
That  submission  is  "  abject  and  disgraceful,"  which 
yields  to  the  decrees  of  frail  and  feeble  power,  as  though 
they  were  irresistible,  —  which  takes  counsel  of  fear,  and 
weighs  not  our  comparative  force,  —  which  abandons  the 
whole  at  a  summons  to  deliver  up  a  part,  —  which 
makes  the  will  of  others  the  measure  of  rights  which 
God  and  nature,  not  only  have  constituted  eternal  and 
unalienable,  but  have  also  indued  us  with  ample  means 
to  maintain. 

My  argument,  on  this  clause  of  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee, may  be  presented  in  this  form.  Either  the  United 
States  have,  or  they  have  not,  physical  ability  to  carry  on 
commerce,  in  defiance  of  the  edicts  of  both,  or  of  either, 
of  these  nations.  If  we  have  not  physical  ability  to  carry 


90          SECOND   SPEECH   ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS. 

on  the  trade  which  they  prohibit,  then  it  is  no  disgrace 
to  exercise  that  commerce  which  these  irresistible  de- 
crees permit.  If  we  have  such  physical  ability,  then  to 
the  degree  in  which  we  abahdon  that  commerce  which 
we  have  the  power  to  carry  on,  is  our  submission  "  abject 
and  disgraceful."  It  is  yielding  without  struggle.  It  is 
sacrificing  our  rights,  not  because  we  have  not  force,  but 
because  we  have  not  spirit,  to  maintain  them.  It  is 
in  this  point  of  view  that  I  am  disgusted  with  this 
report.  It  abjures  what  it  recommends.  It  declaims 
in  heroics  against  submission,  and  proposes  in  creeping 
prose  a  tame  and  servile  subserviency. 

It  cannot  be  concealed,  let  gentlemen  try  as  much 
as  they  will,  that  we  can  trade,  not  only  with  one,  but 
with  both  these  belligerents,  notwithstanding  these 
restrictive  decrees.  The  risk  to  Great  Britain  against 
French  capture  scarcely  amounts  to  two  per  cent.  That 
to  France  against  Great  Britain  is,  unquestionably,  much 
greater.  But  what  is  that  to  us  ?  It  is  not  our  fault,  if 
the  power  of  Britain  on  the  ocean  is  superior  to  that  of 
Bonaparte.  It  is  equal  and  exact  justice,  between  both 
nations,  for  us  to  trade  with  both  as  far  as  it  is  in  our 
power.  Great  as  the  power  of  Britain  is  on  the  ocean, 
the  enterprise  and  intrepidity  of  our  merchants  are 
more  than  a  match  for  it.  They  will  get  your  products 
to  the  Continent,  in  spite  of  her  navy.  But  suppose 
they  do  not?  Suppose  they  fail,  and  are  captured  in 
the  attempt  ?  What  is  that  to  us  after  we  have  given 
them  full  notice  of  all  their  dangers,  and  perfect  warn- 
ing, either  of  our  inability  or  of  our  determination  not 
to  protect  them  ?  If  they  take  the  risk  it  is  at  their  peril. 
And  upon  whom  does  the  loss  fall  ?  As  it  does  now, 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOEEIGN  EELATIONS.    91 

through  the  operation  of  your  embargo,  on  the  planter, 
on  the  farmer,  on  the  mechanic,  on  the  day  laborer  ? 
No,  sir.  On  the  insurer,  on  the  capitalist,  on  those 
who,  in  the  full  exercise  of  their  intelligence,  apprised 
of  all  circumstances,  are  willing  to  take  the  hazard  for 
the  sake  of  the  profit. 

I  will  illustrate  my  general  idea  by  a  supposition. 
There  are  two  avenues  to  the  ocean  from  the  harbor  of 
New  York,  —  by  the  Narrows  and  through  Long  Island 
Sound.  Suppose  the  fleets  both  of  France  and  Great 
Britain  should  block  up  the  Narrows,  so  that  to  pass 
them  would  be  physically  impossible  in  the  relative 
state  of  our  naval  force.  Will  gentlemen  seriously  con- 
tend that  there  would  be  any  thing  "  abject  or  disgrace- 
ful "  if  the  people  of  New  York  should  submit  to  carry 
on  their  trade  through  the  Sound  ?  Would  the  remedy 
for  this  interference  with  our  rights  be  abandoning  the 
ocean  altogether  ?  Again,  suppose  that,  instead  of  both 
nations  blockading  the  same,  each  should  station  its 
force  at  a  different  one,  —  France  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Sound,  Britain  at  the  Narrows.  In  such  case  would 
staying  at  home  and  refusing  any  more  to  go  upon 
the  sea  be  exercise  of  independence  in  the  citizens  of 
New  York  ?  Great  philosophers  may  call  it  "  dignified 
retirement"  if  they  will.  I  call  it,  and  I  am  mistaken 
if  the  people  would  not  also  call  it,  "  base  and  abject 
submission."  Sir,  what  in  such  a  case  would  be  true 
honor  ?  Why,  to  consider  well  which  adversary  is 
weakest,  and  cut  our  way  to  our  rights  through  the 
path  which  he  obstructs.  Having  removed  the  smaller 
impediment,  we  should  return  with  courage  strength- 
ened by  trial  and  animated  by  success,  to  the  relief  of  our 


92  SECOND   SPEECH   ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

rights  from  the  pressure  of  the  strongest  assailant.  But 
all  this  is  war.  And  war  is  never  to  be  incurred.  If 
this  be  the  national  principle,  avow  it.  Tell  your  mer- 
chants you  will  not  protect  them.  But  for  heaven's 
sake  do  not  deny  them  the  power  of  relieving  their 
own  and  the  nation's  burdens  by  the  exercise  of  their 
own  ingenuity.  Sir,  impassable  as  the  barriers  offered 
by  these  edicts  are  in  the  estimation  of  members  on  this 
floor,  the  merchants  abroad  do  not  estimate  them  as  in- 
surmountable. Their  anxiety  to  risk  their  property  in 
defiance  of  them  is  full  evidence  of  this.  The  great 
danger  to  mercantile  ingenuity  is  internal  envy  ;  the  cor- 
rosion of  weakness  or  prejudice.  Its  external  hazard 
is  ever  infinitely  smaller.  That  practical  intelligence 
which  this  class  of  men  possesses  beyond  any  other  in 
the  community,  excited  by  self-interest,  the  strongest 
of  human  passions,  is  too  elastic  to  be  confined  by 
the  limits  of  exterior  human  powers,  however  great  or 
uncommon.  Build  a  Chinese  wall,  the  wit  of  your 
merchants,  if  permitted  freely  to  operate,  will  break 
through  it,  or  overleap  it,  or  under-creep  it. 

..."  mille  adcle  catenas, 

Effugiet  tamen  haec  sceleratus  vincula  Proteus." 

The  second  branch  of  the  alternatives  under  considera- 
tion is  equally  deceptive  :  "  War  with  both  nations." 
Can  this  ever  be  an  alternative  ?  Did  you  ever  read  in 
history,  can  you  conceive  in  fancy,  a  war  with  two 
nations,  each  of  whom  is  at  war  with  the  other,  with- 
out an  union  with  one  against  the  other  immediately 
resulting  ?  It  cannot  exist  in  nature.  The  very  idea 
is  absurd.  It  never  can  be  an  alternative  whether  we 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.    93 

shall  fight  two  nations,  each  hostile  to  the  other.  But 
it  may  be,  and,  if  we  are  to  fight  at  all,  it  is  a  very 
serious  question,  which  of  the  two  we  are  to  select  as 
an  adversary.  As  to  the  third  branch  of  these  cele- 
brated alternatives,  "  a  continuance  and  enforcement  of 
the  present  system  of  commerce,"  I  need  not  spend 
time  to  show  that  this  does  not  include  all  the  alterna- 
tives which  exist  under  this  head,  since  the  committee 
immediately  admit  that  there  does  exist  another  alter- 
native, "partial  repeal,"  about  which  they  proceed  to 
reason. 

The  report  proceeds  :  "  The  first "  (abject  and  de- 
grading submission)  "  cannot  require  any  discussion." 
Certainly  not.  Submission  of  that  quality  which  the 
committee  assume,  and  with  the  epithets  of  which  they 
choose  to  invest  it,  can  never  require  discussion  at  any 
time.  But  whether  trading  under  these  orders  and  de- 
crees be  such  submission,  whether  we  are  not  competent 
to  resist  them,  in  part,  if  not  in  whole,  without  a  total 
abandonment  of  the  exercise  of  all  our  maritime  rights, 
the  comparative  effects  of  the  edicts  of  each  upon  our 
commerce,  and  the  means  we  possess  to  influence  or 
control  either,  are  all  fair  and  proper  subjects  of  discus- 
sion, some  of  which  the  committee  have  wholly  neg- 
lected, and  none  of  which  have  they  examined  as  the 
House  had  a  right  to  expect. 

The  committee  proceed  "  to  dissipate  the  illusion  " 
that  there  is  any  "  middle  course,"  and  to  reassert  the 
position  before  examined,  that  "  there  is  no  other  alter- 
native than  war  with  both  nations,  or  a  continuance 
of  the  present  system."  This  position  they  undertake 
to  support  by  two  assertions :  First,  that  "  war  with 


94  SECOND   SPEECH   ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

one  of  the  belligerents  only  would  be  submission  to  the 
edicts  and  will  of  the  other  ;  "  second,  that  "  repeal,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  of  the  embargo  must  necessarily  be 
war  or  submission." 

As  to  the  first  assertion,  it  is  a  miserable  fallacy,  con- 
founding coincidence  of  interest  with  a  subjection  of 
will ;  things  in  their  nature  palpably  distinct.  A  man 
may  do  what  another  wills,  nay,  what  he  commands, 
and  not  act  in  submission  to  his  will  or  in  obedience  to 
his  command.  Our  interest  or  duty  may  coincide  with 
the  line  of  conduct  another  presumes  to  prescribe.  Shall 
we  vindicate  our  independence  at  the  expense  of  our 
social  or  moral  obligations  ?  I  exemplify  my  idea  in 
this  way  :  Two  bullies  beset  your  door,  from  which 
there  are  but  two  avenues.  One  of  them  forbids  you 
to  go  by  the  left,  the  other  forbids  you  to  go  by  the 
right  avenue.  Each  is  willing  that  you  should  pass  by 
the  way  which  he  permits.  In  such  case,  what  will 
you  do  ?  Will  you  keep  house  for  ever  rather  than 
make  choice  of  the  path  through  which  you  will  re- 
sume your  external  rights  ?  You  cannot  go  both  ways 
at  once  ;  you  must  make  your  election.  Yet  in  making 
such  election  you  must  necessarily  coincide  with  the 
wishes  and  act  according  to  the  commands  of  one  of 
the  bullies.  Yet  who,  before  this  committee,  ever 
thought  an  election  of  one  of  two  inevitable  courses 
made  under  such  circumstances  "  abject  and  degrading 
submission  "  to  the  will  of  either  of  the  assailants.  The 
second  assertion,  that  "  repeal,  in  whole  or  in  part,  of 
the  embargo  must  necessarily  be  war  or  submission  " 
the  committee  proceed  to  maintain  by  several  subsid- 
iary assertions  :  First,  "  A  general  repeal,  without 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.    95 

arming,  would  be  submission  to  both  nations."  So  far 
from  this  being  true,  the  reverse  is  the  fact :  it  would 
be  submission  to  neither.  Great  Britain  does  not  say, 
"  You  shall  trade  with  me."  France  does  not  say,  "  You 
shall  trade  with  me."  If  this  was  the  language  of  their 
edicts,  there  might  be  some  cause  for  the  assertion  of  the 
committee,  If  we  trade  with  either  we  submit.  The 
edicts  of  each  declare  you  shall  not  trade  with  my 
adversary.  Our  servile,  knee-crooking  embargo  says, 
"  You  shall,  therefore,  not  trade."  Can  any  submission 
be  more  palpable,  more  "  abject,  more  disgraceful !  " 
A  general  repeal  without  arming  would  be  only  an 
exercise  of  our  natural  rights  under  the  protection  of 
our  mercantile  ingenuity,  and  not  under  that  of  physical 
power.  Whether  our  merchants  shall  arm  or  not  is  a 
question  of  political  expediency  and  of  relative  force. 
It  may  be  very  true  that  we  can  fight  our  way  to  neither 
country,  and  yet  it  may  be  also  very  true  that  we  may 
carry  on  a  very  important  commerce  with  both.  The 
strength  of  the  national  arm  may  not  be  equal  to  con- 
tend with  either,  and  yet  the  wit  of  our  merchants  may 
be  an  overmatch  for  the  edicts  of  all.  The  question  of 
arming  or  not  arming  has  reference  only  to  the  mode  in 
which  we  shall  best  enjoy  our  rights,  and  not  at  all  to 
the  quality  of  the  act  of  trading  during  these  edicts. 
To  exercise  commerce  is  our  absolute  right.  If  we  arm, 
we  may  possibly  extend  the  field  beyond  that  which 
mere  ingenuity  would  open  to  us.  Whether  the  exten- 
sion thus  required  be  worthy  of  the  risk  and  expense  is 
a  fair  question.  But,  decide  it  either  way,  how  is  trad- 
ing as  far  as  we  have  ability  made  more  abject  than  not 
trading  at  all. 


96  SECOND    SPEECH   ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

I  come  to  the  second  subsidiary  assertion  :  "  A  gen- 
eral repeal  and  arming  of  merchant  vessels  would  be 
war  with  both,  and  war  of  the  worst  kind,  suffering  the 
enemies  to  plunder  us  without  retaliation  upon  them." 

I  have  before  exposed  the  absurdity  of  a  war  with 
two  belligerents,  each  hostile  to  the  other.  It  cannot 
be  true,  therefore,  that  "  a  general  repeal  and  arming 
our  merchant  vessels  "  would  be  such  a  war.  Neither 
if  war  resulted  would  it  be  "  war  of  the  worst  kind." 
In  my  humble  apprehension  a  war  in  which  our  ene- 
mies are  permitted  to  plunder  us  and  our  merchants  not 
permitted  to  defend  their  property,  is  somewhat  worse 
than  a  war  like  this,  in  which,  with  arms  in  their  hands, 
our  brave  seamen  might  sometimes  prove  too  strong  for 
their  piratical  assailants.  By  the  whole  amount  of  prop- 
erty which  we  might  be  able  to  preserve  by  these  means, 
would  such  a  war  be  better  than  that  in  which  we  are 
now  engaged.  For  the  committee  assure  us  (page  14) 
that  the  aggressions  to  which  we  are  subject  "  are  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  a  maritime  war,  waged  by  both 
nations  against  the  United  States." 

The  last  assertion  of  the  committee  in  this  most  mas- 
terly page  is,  that  "  a  partial  repeal  must,  from  the  situ- 
ation of  Europe,  necessarily  be  actual  submission  to  one 
of  the  aggressors,  and  war  with  the  other."  In  the 
name  of  common  sense,  how  can  this  be  true  ?  The 
trade  to  Sweden,  to  Spain,  to  China,  are  not  now  af- 
fected by  the  orders  or  decrees  of  either  belligerent. 
How  is  it  submission,  then,  to  these  orders  for  us  to 
trade  to  Gottenburg,  when  neither  France  nor  Britain 
command  nor  prohibit  it  ?  Of  what  consequence  is  it 
to  us  in  what  way  the  Gottenburg  merchant  disposes  of 


SECOND   SPEECH   ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.          97 

our  products  after  he  has  paid  us  our  price  ?  I  am  not 
about  to  deny  that  a  trade  to  Gottenburg  would  defeat 
the  purpose  of  coercing  Great  Britain  through  the  want 
of  our  supplies.  But  I  reason  on  the  report  upon  its 
avowed  principles.  If  gentlemen  adhere  to  their  system 
as  a  means  of  coercion,  let  the  administration  avow  it  as 
such,  and  support  the  system  by  arguments  such  as  their 
friends  use  every  day  on  this  floor.  .  Let  them  avow,  as 
those  friends  do,  that  this  is  our  mode  of  hostility  against 
Great  Britain  ;  that  it  is  better  than  "  ball  and  gun- 
powder." Let  them  show  that  the  means  are  adequate 
to  the  end  ;  let  them  exhibit  to  us,  beyond  the  term  of 
all  this  suffering,  a  happy  salvation  and  a  glorious  vic- 
tory, and  the  people  may  then  submit  to  it,  even  with- 
out murmur.  But  while  the  administration  support  their 
system  only  as  a  municipal  regulation,  as  a  means  of 
safety  and  preservation,  those  who  canvass  their  prin- 
ciple are  not  called  upon  to  contest  with  them  on  ground 
which  not  only  they  do  not  take,  but  which  officially 
they  disavow.  As  partial  repeal  would  not  be  submis- 
sion to  either,  so  also  it  would  not  be  war  with  either. 
A  trade  to  Sweden  would  not  be  war  with  Great  Britain; 
that  nation  is  her  ally,  and  she  permits  it :  nor  with 
France  ;  though  Sweden  is  her  enemj'-,  she  does  not 
prohibit  it.  "  Ah  !  but,"  say  the  committee  (page  13), 
"  a  measure  which  would  supply  exclusively  one  of  the 
belligerents  would  be  war  with  the  other."  This  is  the 
state  secret ;  this  is  the  master-key  to  the  whole  policy. 
You  must  not  only  not  do  what  the  letter  of  these  orders 
prohibits,  but  you  must  not  sin  against  the  spirit  of  them. 
The  great  purpose  is  to  prevent  your  products  from 
getting  to  our  enemy ;  and  to  effect  this  you  must  not 

7 


98  SECOND    SPEECH    ON   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

only  so  act  as  to  obey  the  terras  of  the  decrees ;  but, 
keeping  the  great  purpose  of  them  always  in  sight,  you 
must  extend  their  construction  to  cases  which  they  can- 
not by  any  rule  of  reason  be  made  to  include. 

Sir,  I  have  done  with  this  report.  I  would  not  have 
submitted  to  the  task  of  canvassing  it  if  gentlemen  had 
not  thrown  the  gauntlet  with  the  air  of  sturdy  defiance. 
I  willingly  leave  to  this  House  and  the  nation  to  decide 
whether  the  position  I  took  in  the  commencement  of 
my  argument  is  not  maintained,  —  that  there  is  not  one 
of  the  principal  positions  contained  in  this  twelfth  page, 
the  heart  of  this  report,  which  is  true  in  the  sense  and 
to  the  extent  assumed  by  the  committee. 

It  was  under  these  general  impressions  that  I  used 
the  word  "  loathsome,"  which  has  so  often  been  re- 
peated. Sir,  it  may  not  have  been  a  well-chosen  word. 
It  was  that  which  happened  to  come  to  hand  first.  I 
meant  to  express  my  disgust  at  what  appeared  to  me  a 
mass  of  bold  assumptions  and  of  ill-cemented  sophisms. 

I  said,  also,  that  "  the  spirit  which  it  breathed  was 
disgraceful."  Sir,  I  meant  no  reflection  upon  the  com- 
mittee. Honest  men  and  wise  men  may  mistake  the 
character  of  the  spirit  which  they  recommend,  or  by 
which  they  are  actuated.  When  called  upon  to  reason 
concerning  that  which  by  adoption  is  to  become  identi- 
fied with  the  national  character,  I  am  bound  to  speak  of 
it  as  it  appears  to  my  vision.  I  may  be  mistaken,  yet 
I  ask  the  question,  Is  not  the  spirit  which  it  breathes 
disgraceful  ?  Is  it  not  disgraceful  to  abandon  the  exer- 
cise of  all  our  commercial  rights  because  our  rivals 
interfere  with  a  part  ?  not  only  to  refrain  from  exercis- 
ing that  trade  which  they  prohibit,  but  for  fear  of  giving 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.     99 

offence  to  decline  that  which  they  permit  ?  Is  it  not 
disgraceful,  after  inflammatory  recapitulation  of  insults 
and  plunderings  and  burnings  and  confiscations  and 
murders  and  actual  war  made  upon  us,  to  talk  of 
nothing  but  alternatives,  of  general  declarations,  of 
still  longer  suspension  of  our  rights,  and  retreating 
further  out  of  "  harm's  way "  ?  If  this  course  be 
adopted  by  my  country,  I  hope  I  am  in  error  concern- 
ing its  real  character.  But  to  my  sense  this  whole 
report  is  nothing  else  than  a  recommendation  to  us  of 
the  abandonment  of  our  essential  rights,  and  apologies 
for  doing  it. 

Before  I  sit  down,  I  feel  myself  compelled  to  notice 
some  observations  which  have  been  made  in  different 
quarters  of  this  House  on  the  remarks  which,  at  an  early 
stage  of  this  debate,  I  had  the  honor  of  submitting  to 
its  consideration.  My  honorable  colleague  (Mr.  Bacon) 
was  pleased  to  represent  me  as  appealing  to  the  people, 
over  the  heads  of  the  whole  government,  against  the 
authority  of  a  law  which  had  not  only  the  sanction  of 
all  the  legislative  branches  of  the  government,  but  also 
of  the  judiciary.  Sir,  I  made  no  such  appeal.  I  did 
not  so  much  as  threaten  it.  I  admitted  expressly  the 
binding  authority  of  the  law.  But  I  claim  a  right, 
which  I  ever  will  claim  and  ever  will  exercise,  to  urge 
on  this  floor  my  opinion  of  the  unconstitutionally  of  a 
law  and  my  reasons  for  that  opinion  as  a  valid  ground 
for  its  repeal.  Sir,  I  will  not  only  do  this,  I  will  do 
more.  If  a  law  be,  in  my  apprehension,  dangerous  in 
its  principles,  ruinous  in  its  consequences,  above  all  if 
it  be  unconstitutional,  I  will  not  fail,  in  every  fair  and 
honorable  way,  to  awaken  the  people  to  a  sense  of  their 


100         SECOND    SPEECH   ON   FOEEIGN   RELATIONS. 

peril,  and  to  quicken  them,  by  the  exercise  of  their  con- 
stitutional privileges,  to  vindicate  themselves  and  pos- 
terity from  ruin. 

My  honorable  colleague  (Mr.  Bacon)  was  also  pleased 
to  refer  to  me  as  a  man  of  divisions  and  distinctions, 
waging  war  with  adverbs  and  dealing  in  figures.  Sir,  I 
am  sorry  that  my  honorable  colleague  should  stoop  "  from 
his  pride  of  place  "  at  such  humble  game  as  my  poor  style 
presents  to  him.  Certainly,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot  but 
confess  that  "  deeming  high"  of  this  station  which  I 
hold ;  standing,  as  it  were,  in  the  awful  presence  of  an 
assembled  people,  —  I  am  more  than  ordinarily  anxious, 
on  all  occasions,  to  select  the  best  thoughts  in  my  nar- 
row storehouse,  and  to  adapt  to  them  the  most  appro- 
priate dress  in  my  intellectual  wardrobe.  I  know  not 
whether  on  this  account  I  am  justly  obnoxious  to  the 
asperity  of  my  honorable  colleague.  But  on  the  subject 
of  figures,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  I  know,  and  cannot  refrain 
from  assuring  this  House,  that  as,  on  the  one  hand,  I 
shall,  to  the  extent  of  my  humble  talents,  always  be 
ambitious,  and  never  cease  striving,  to  make  a  decent 
figure  on  this  floor,  so,  on  the  other,  I  never  can  be  am- 
bitious, but,  on  the  contrary,  shall  ever  strive  chiefly 
to  avoid  cutting  a  figure  like  my  honorable  colleague. 

The  gentleman  from  Georgia  (Mr.  Troup),  the  other 
day,  told  this  House  that,  if  commerce  were  permitted, 
such  was  the  state  of  our  foreign  relations,  none  but 
bankrupts  would  carry  on  trade.  Sir,  the  honorable 
gentleman  has  not  attained  correct  information  in  this 
particular.  I  do  not  believe  that  I  state  any  thing 
above  the  real  fact  when  I  say  that,  on  the  day  this  leg- 
islature assembled,  one  hundred  vessels,  at  least,  were 


SECOND   SPEECH   ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.        101 

lying  in  the  different  ports  and  harbors  of  New  England, 
loaded,  riding  at  single  anchor,  ready  and  anxious  for 
nothing  so  much  as  for  your  leave  to  depart.  Certainly, 
this  does  not  look  much  like  any  doubt  that  a  field  of 
advantageous  commerce  would  open  if  you  would  unbar 
the  door  to  our  citizens.  That  this  was  the  case  in 
Massachusetts,  I  know.  Before  I  left  that  part  of  the 
country,  I  had  several  applications  from  men  who  stated 
that  they  had  property  in  such  situations,  arid  soliciting 
me  to  give  them  the  earliest  information  of  your  proba- 
ble policy.  The  men  so  applying,  sir,  I  can  assure  the 
House,  were  not  bankrupts,  but  intelligent  merchants, 
shrewd  to  perceive  their  true  interests,  keen  to  pursue 
them.  An  honorable  gentleman  (Mr.  Troup,  of  Geor- 
gia) was  also  pleased  to  speak  of  "  a  paltry  trade  in 
potash  and  codfish,"  and  to  refer  to  me  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  men  who  raised  "  beef  and  pork,  and  butter 
and  cheese,  and  potatoes  and  cabbages."  Well,  sir,  I 
confess  the  fact.  I  am  the  representative,  in  part,  of 
men  the  products  of  whose  industry  are  beef  and  pork, 
and  butter  and  cheese,  and  potatoes  and  cabbages.  And 
let  me  tell  that  honorable  gentleman  that  I  would  not 
yield  the  honor  of  representing  such  men  to  be  the  rep- 
sentative  of  all  the  growers  of  cotton  and  rice  and  to- 
bacco and  indigo  in  the  whole  world.  Sir,  the  men 
whom  I  represent  not  only  raise  these  humble  articles, 
but  they  do  it  with  the  labor  of  their  own  hands,  with 
the  sweat  of  their  own  brows.  And  by  this,  their  hab- 
itual mode  of  hardy  industry,  they  acquire  a  vigor  of 
nerve,  a  strength  of  muscle,  and  a  spirit  and  intelligence 
somewhat  characteristic.  And  let  me  assure  that  hon- 
orable gentleman  that  the  men  of  whom  I  speak  will 


102    SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS. 

not,  at  his  call  nor  at  the  invitation  of  any  set  of  men 
from  his  quarter  of  the  Union,  undertake  to  "  drive  one 
another  into  the  ocean."  But,  on  the  contrary,  when- 
ever they  once  realize  that  their  rights  are  invaded, 
they  will  unite,  like  a  band  of  brothers,  and  drive  their 
enemies  there. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  Kentucky  (Mr.  John- 
son), speaking  of  the  embargo,  said  that  this  was  the 
kind  of  conflict  which  our  fathers  waged  ;  and  my  hon- 
orable colleague  (Mr.  Bacon)  made  a  poor  attempt  to 
confound  this  policy  with  the  non-intercourse  and  non- 
importation agreement  of  1774  and  1775.  Sir,  nothing 
can  be  more  dissimilar.  The  non-intercourse  and  non- 
importation agreement  of  that  period,  so  far  from  de- 
stroying commerce,  fostered  and  encouraged  it.  The 
trade  with  Great  Britain  was,  indeed,  voluntarily  ob- 
structed, but  the  enterprise  of  our  merchants  found  a 
new  incentive  in  the  commerce  with  all  the  other 
nations  of  the  globe,  which  succeeded  immediately  on 
our  escape  from  the  monopoly  of  the  mother  country. 
Our  navigation  was  never  suspended.  The  field  of 
commerce,  at  that  period,  so  far  from  being  blasted  by 
pestiferous  regulations,  was  extended  by  the  effect  of 
the  restrictions  adopted. 

But,  let  us  grant  all  they  assert.  Admit,  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  that  the  embargo  which  restrains  us  now 
from  communication  with  all  the  world  is  precisely 
synonymous  with  that  non-intercourse  and  non-impor- 
tation which  restrained  us  then  from  Great  Britain. 
Suppose  the  war  which  we  now  wage  with  that  nation 
is  in  every  respect  the  same  as  that  which  our  fathers 
waged  with  her  in  1774  and  1775.  Have  we,  from  the 


SECOND   SPEECH   ON   FOKEIGN   RELATIONS.       103 

effects  of  their  trial,  any  lively  hope  of  success  in  our 
present  attempt?  Did  our  fathers  either  effect  a  change 
in  her  injurious  policy,  or  prevent  a  war,  by  non-impor- 
tation and  non-intercourse  ?  Sir,  thej^  did  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other.  Her  policy  was  never  changed 
until  she  had  been  beaten  on  our  soil  in  an  eight  years' 
war.  Our  fathers  never  relied  upon  non-intercourse 
and  non-importation  as  measures  of  hostile  coercion. 
They  placed  their  dependence  upon  them  solely  as 
means  of  pacific  influence  among  the  people  of  that 
nation.  The  relation  in  which  this  country  stood  at 
that  time,  with  regard  to  Great  Britain,  gave  a  weight 
and  a  potency  to  these  measures  then  which,  in  our 
present  relation  to  her,  we  can  neither  hope  nor  imagine 
possible.  At  that  period  we  were  her  colonies,  a  part 
of  her  family.  Our  prosperity  was  essentially  hers.  So 
it  was  avowed  in  this  country,  so  it  was  admitted  in 
Great  Britain.  Every  refusal  of  intercourse  which  had 
a  tendency  to  show  the  importance  of  these,  then  colo- 
nies, to  the  parent  country,  of  the  part  to  the  whole, 
was  a  natural  and  a  wise  means  of  giving  weight  to  our 
remonstrances.  We  pretended  not  to  control,  but  to 
influence,  by  making  her  feel  our  importance.  In  this 
attempt,  we  excited  no  national  pride  on  the  other  side 
of  the  Atlantic.  Our  success  was  no  national  degra- 
dation ;  for  the  more  we  developed  our  resources  and 
relative  weight,  the  more  we  discovered  the  strength 
and  resources  of  the  British  power.  We  were  then 
component  parts  of  it.  All  the  measures  of  the  colonies, 
antecedent  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  had  this 
principle  for  its  basis.  As  such,  non-importation  and 
non-intercourse  were  adopted  in  this  country.  As  such, 


104        SECOND    SPEECH   ON    FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

they  met  the  co-operation  of  the  patriots  of  Great 
Britain,  who  deemed  themselves  deviating  from  none  of 
their  national  duties  when  they  avowed  themselves  the 
allies  of  American  patriots,  to  drive,  through  the  influ- 
ence of  the  loss  of  our  trade,  the  ministry  from  their 
places  or  their  measures.  Those  patriots  did  co-operate 
with  our  fathers,  and  that  openly,  in  exciting  discontent 
under  the  effect  of  our  non-intercourse  agreements.  In 
so  doing,  they  failed  in  none  of  their  obligations  to  their 
sovereign.  In  no  nation,  can  it  ever  be  a  failure  of  duty 
to  maintain  that  the  safety  of  the  whole  depends  on 
preserving  its  due  weight  to  every  part.  Yet,  notwith- 
standing the  natural  and  little  suspicious  use  of  these 
instruments  of  influence  ;  notwithstanding  the  zeal  of 
the  American  people  coincided  with  the  views  of  the 
Congress,  and  a  mighty  party  existed  in  Great  Britain 
openly  leagued  with  our  fathers  to  give  weight  and 
effect  to  their  measures,  —  they  did  not  effect  the  pur- 
poses for  which  they  were  put  into  operation.  The 
British  policy  was  not  abandoned.  War  was  not  pre- 
vented. How,  then,  can  any  encouragement  be  drawn 
from  that  precedent,  to  support  us  under  the  pri- 
vations of  the  present  system  of  commercial  suspen- 
sion ?  Can  any  nation  admit  that  the  trade  of  another 
is  so  important  to  her  welfare  as  that,  on  its  being 
withdrawn,  any  obnoxious  policy  must  be  abandoned, 
without  at  the  same  time  admitting  that  she  is  no 
longer  independent  ?  Sir,  I  could  indeed  wish  that 
it  were  in  our  power  to  regulate  not  only  Great  Britain 
but  the  whole  world  by  opening  or  closing  our  ports.  It 
would  be  a  glorious  thing  for  our  country  to  possess 
such  a  mighty  weapon  of  offence.  But,  acting  in  a 


SECOND   SPEECH   ON  FOKEIGN   EELATIONS.       105 

public  capacity,  with  the  high  responsibilities  resulting 
from  the  great  interests  dependent  upon  my  decision,  I 
cannot  yield  to  the  wishes  of  love-sick  patriots,  or  the 
visions  of  teeming  enthusiasts.  I  must  see  the  ade- 
quacy of  means  .to  their  ends.  I  must  see  not  merely 
that  it  is  very  desirable  that  Great  Britain  should  be 
brought  to  our  feet  by  this  embargo,  but  that  there  is 
some  likelihood  of  such  a  consequence  to  the  measure, 
before  I  can  concur  in  that  universal  distress  and  ruin 
whicji,  if  much  longer  continued,  will  inevitably  result 
from  it.  Since,  then,  every  dictate  of  sense  and  reflec- 
tion convinces  me  of  the  utter  futility  of  this  system, 
as  a  means  of  coercion  on  Great  Britain,  I  shall  not  hesi- 
tate to  urge  its  abandonment.  No,  sir,  not  even,  al- 
though, like  others,  I  should  be  assailed  by  all  the  terrors 
of  the  outcry  of  British  influence. 

Really,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  know  not  how  to  express  the 
shame  and  disgust  with  which  I  am  filled  when  I  hear 
language  of  this  kind  cast  out  upon  this  floor,  and 
thrown  in  the  faces  of  men  standing  justly  at  no  mean 
height  in  the  confidence  of  fheir  countrymen.  Sir,  I 
did  indeed  know  that  such  vulgar  aspersions  were  cir- 
culating among  the  lower  passions  of  our  nature.  I 
knew  that  such  vile  substances  were  ever  tempering 
between  the  paws  of  some  printer's  devil.  I  knew  that 
foul  exhalations,  like  these,  daily  rose  in  our  cities,  and 
crept  along  the  ground,  just  as  high  as  the  spirits  of 
lamp-black  and  saline  oil  could  elevate  ;  falling  soon,  by 
native  baseness,  into  oblivion.  I  knew,  too,  that  this 
species  of  party  insinuation  was  a  mighty  engine  in 
this  quarter  of  the  country  on  an  election  day,  played 
off  from  the  top  of  a  stump,  or  the  top  of  a  hogshead, 


106        SECOND   SPEECH   OX   FOREIGN   RELATIONS. 

while  the  gin  circulated,  while  barbecue  was  roasting ; 
in  those  happy,  fraternal  associations  and  consociations, 
when  those  who  speak  utter  without  responsibility  and 
those  who  listen  hear  without  scrutiny.  But  little  did 
I  think  that  such  odious  shapes  would-  dare  to  obtrude 
themselves  on  this  national  floor,  among  honorable  men, 
and  select  representatives,  the  confidential  agents  of  a 
wise,  a  thoughtful,  and  a  virtuous  people.  I  want  lan- 
guage to  express  my  contempt  and  indignation  at  the 
sight. 

So  far  as  respects  the  attempt  which  has  been  made 
to  cast  such  aspersion  on  that  part  of  the  country  which 
I  have  the  honor  to  represent,  I  beg  this  honorable 
House  to  understand  that,  so  long  as  they  who  circulated 
such  insinuations  deal  only  in  generals  and  touch  not 
particulars,  they  may  gain  among  the  ignorant  and  the 
stupid  a  vacant  and  a  staring  audience.  But  when 
once  these  suggestions  are  brought  to  bear  upon  those 
individuals  who,  in  New  England,  have  naturally  the 
confidence  of  their  countrymen,  there  is  no  power  in 
these  calumnies.  The  men  who  now  lead  the  influences 
of  that  country,  and  in  whose  councils  the  people  on 
the  day  when  the  tempest  shall  come  will  seek  refuge, 
are  men  whose  stake  is  in  the  soil,  whose  interests  are 
identified  with  those  of  the  mass  of  their  brethren, 
whose  private  lives  and  public  sacrifices  present  a  never- 
failing  antidote  to  the  poison  of  malicious  invectives. 
On  such  men,  sir,  party  spirit  may  indeed  cast  its 
odious  filth,  but  there  is  a  polish  in  their  virtues  to 
which  no  such  slime  can  adhere.  They  are  owners  of 
the  soil,  real  yeomanry  ;  many  of  them  men  who  led  in 
the  councils  of  our  country  in  the  dark  day  which  pre- 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.    107 

ceded  national  independence  ;  many  of  them  men  who, 
like  my  honorable,  friend  from  Connecticut,  on  my  left 
(Colonel  Talmage),  stood  foremost  on  the  perilous  edge 
of  battle,  making  their  breasts  in  the  day  of  danger  a 
bulwark  for  their  country. 

True  it  is,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  another  and  a  much 
more  numerous  class,  composed  of  such  as,  through 
defect  of  age,  can  claim  no  share  in  the  glories  of  our 
Revolution :  such  as  have  not  yet  been  blest  with  the 
happy  opportunity  of  "playing  the  man"  for  their 
country  ;  generous  sons  of  illustrious  sires ;  men  not 
to  be  deterred  from  fulfilling  the  high  obligations  they 
owe  to  this  people  by  the  sight  of  these  foul  and  offen- 
sive weapons.  Men  who,  with  little  experience  of  their 
own  to  boast,  will  fly  to  the  tombs  of  their  fathers,  and 
questioning  concerning  their  duties  the  spirit  which 
hovers  there,  will  no  more  shrink  from  maintaining  their 
native  rights,  through  fear  of  the  sharpness  of  malevo- 
lent tongues,  than  they  will,  if  put  to  the  trial,  shrink 
from  defending  them,  through  fear  of  the  sharpness  of 
their  enemies'  swords. 


SPEECH 

ON  THE   BILL   FOR   RAISING  FIFTY   THOUSAND 
VOLUNTEERS. 

DEC.  30,  1808. 


SPEECH 

ON    THE    BILL    FOR    RAISING    FIFTY    THOUSAND 
VOLUNTEERS. 

DEC.  30,  1808. 


[!N  the  course  of  December,  1808,  a  bill  was  introduced  for 
raising  fifty  thousand  volunteers.  It  caused  excited  discussions 
between  the  two  parties.  The  administration  affirmed  that  this 
force  should  be  provided  in  case  the  embargo  should  fail  of  its 
purpose  and  war  should  ensue.  The  Federalists  were  willing 
to  vote  for  the  bill  provided  its  object  was  defined.  If  the  ad- 
ministration contemplated  war,  they  would  vote  for  any  necessary 
force  to  carry  it  on.  But,  if  the  purpose  of  the  proposed  army 
was  to  enforce  the  embargo,  they  should  resist  it  to  the  utmost 
of  their  ability.  It  was  on  this  occasion  that  Mr.  Quincy  made 
the  following  speech,  on  the  30th  of  December,  1808,  which 
caused  a  great  excitement,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  interruptions 
of  the  friends  of  the  bill.  —  ED.] 

I  AGREE  with  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr. 
Eppes)  that  the  present  is  a  period  in  which  it  becomes 
members  of  this  legislature  to  maintain  their  indepen- 
dence and  not  to  shrink  from  responsibility.  I  agree  that 
it  is  a  time  in  which  all  men  in  places  of  trust  should 
weigh  well  the  principles  by  which  they  are  actuated 
and  the  ends  at  which  they  aim ;  and  that  they  should 
mark  both  so  distinctly  as  that  they  may  be  fully  under- 


112  SPEECH   ON  THE   BILL  FOE  EAISING 

stood  by  the  people.  But  I  hope  it  is  not,  and  that  there 
never  will  be,  a  time  in  which  it  becomes  the  duty  of 
ain*  man  or  set  of  men  on  this  floor,  under  pretence  of 
national  exigencies,  to  concur  in  an  infringement  of  the 
limits  of  the  Constitution.  I  trust  it  is  not  a  time,  for  a 
member  of  such  a  legislature  as  this,  thoughtlessly  to 
strengthen  hands  which  already  hold  powers  inconsistent 
with  civil  liberty,  by  our  surrender  of  authority,  espe- 
cially intrusted  to  us  by  the  people,  into  the  exclusive 
possession  of  another  department  of  the  government. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Eppes)  alleges 
that  the  men  whom  he  calls  Federalists  have,  for  party 
purposes,  represented  the  embargo  as  a  permanent  meas- 
ure. He  disclaims  such  an  idea,  both  on  his  own 
account  and  on  that  of  a  majority  of  this  House.  On  this 
head,  I  am  ready  to  maintain  that  the  embargo  law,  as 
it  was  originally  passed,  was  an  abuse  of  the  powers 
vested  in  this  branch  of  the  legislature,  and,  as  it  has 
been  subsequently  enforced  by  supplementary  laAvs,  is  a 
manifest  violation  of  the  Constitution,  and  an  assumption 
of  powers  vested  in  the  States  ;  and  that,  until  I  have 
some  satisfaction  on  these  points,  I  am  not  disposed  to 
pass  a  law  for  raising  such  an  additional  military  force 
as  this  bill  contemplates. 

Concerning  the  permanency  of  the  embargo,  about 
which  so  much  wire-drawing  ingenuity  has  been  exer- 
cised, this  I  assert,  that,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  powers 
of  this  House,  the  embargo  is  permanent.  That  control 
over  commerce  which  the  Constitution  has  vested  in  us, 
we  have  transferred  to  the  executive.  Whether  the 
people  shall  ever  enjoy  any  commerce  again,  or  whether 
we  shall  ever  have  any  power  in  its  regulation,  depends 


FIFTY  THOUSAND   VOLUNTEEKS.  113 

not  upon  the  will  of  this  House,  but  upon  the  will  of 
the  President  and  of  twelve  members  of  the  Senate. 
The  manner  in  which  the  powers  vested  in  this  branch 
of  the  legislature  have  been  exercised,  I  hesitate  not  to 
declare  a  flagrant  abuse  of  those  powers  and  a  violation 
of  the  most  acknowledged  safeguards  of  civil  liberty. 

Sir,  what  is  the  relation  in  which  this  House,  in  the 
eye  of  the  Constitution,  stands  to  the  people  ?  Is  it  not 
composed  of  men  emanating  from  the  mass  of  the  com- 
munity ?  Are  not  our  interests  peculiarly  identified  with 
theirs  ?  Is  not  this  the  place  in  which  the  people  have 
a  right  naturally  to  look  for  the  strongest  struggle  for 
our  constitutional  privileges,  and  the  last  surrender  of 
them  unconditionally  to  the  executive  ?  Is  not  the 
power  to  regulate  commerce  one  of  the  most  important 
of  all  the  trusts  reposed  in  us  by  the  people  ?  Yet  how 
have  we  exercised  this  most  interesting  power  ?  Why, 
sir,  we  have  so  exercised  it  as  not  only  to  annihilate 
commerce  for  the  present,  but  so  as  that  we  can  never, 
hereafter,  have  any  commerce  to  regulate,  until  the 
President  and  twelve  Senators  permit.  Gentlemen, 
when  pressed  upon  the  constitutional  point  resulting 
from  the  permanent  nature  of  this  embargo,  repel  it,  as 
the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Eppes)  did  just  now, 
by  a  broad  denial.  "  It  is  not  permanent,"  say  they. 
"  It  was  never  intended  to  be  permanent."  Yet  it  has 
every  feature  of  permanency.  It  is  impossible  for  terms 
to  give  it  a  more  unlimited  duration.  With  respect  to  in- 
tentions, the  President  and  Senate  have  a  right  to  speak 
on  that  subject.  They  have  a  power  to  permit 
commerce  again  to  be  prosecuted,  or  to  continue  its 
prohibition.  But  what  right  have  we  to  talk  in  this 

8 


114  SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   FOR   RAISING 

manner  ?  I  know  that  we  every  day  amuse  ourselves 
in  making  some  law  about  commerce.  Sir,  this  is  per- 
mitted. It  is  a  part  of  the  delusion  which  we  prac- 
tise upon  the  people,  and  perhaps  upon  ourselves. 
While  engaged  in  debate,  we  feel  as  if  the  power  to 
regulate  commerce  was  yet  in  this  House.  But  put  this 
matter  to  the  test.  Pass  a  law  unanimously  to-morrow 
repealing  the  embargo.  Let  two-thirds  of  the  Senate 
concur.  Let  the  President  and  twelve  men  determine 
not  to  repeal.  I  ask,  is  there  any  power  in  this  House 
to  prevent  them  from  continuing  this  embargo  for  ever  ? 
The  fact  is  undeniable.  Let  the  President  and  twelve 
men  obstinately  persist  in  adherence  to  this  measure, 
and,  in  spite  of  the  intentions  of  this  House,  the  people 
can  alone  again  obtain  their  commerce  by  a  revolution. 
It  follows,  from  what  I  have  stated,  that  those  may  well 
enough  talk  about  what  the}'  intend  who  have  the 
power  of  fulfilling  their  intentions.  But  on  that  sub- 
ject it  becomes  the  members  of  this  House  to  be  silent, 
since  that  power  which  we  once  possessed  has  by  our 
own  act  departed.  So  far  as  this  House  can  ever  here- 
after enjoy  the  opportunity  of  again  regulating  com- 
merce, it  depends  not  upon  the  gift  it  received  from  the 
people,  but  upon  the  restoration  to  us  of  that  power 
which,  the  people  having  intrusted  to  our  care,  we  have 
without  limitation  transferred  to  the  executive. 

Yes,  sir.  The  people  once  had  a  commerce.  Once 
this  House  possessed  the  power  to  regulate  it.  Of  all 
the  grants  in  the  Constitution,  perhaps  this  was  most 
highly  prized  by  the  people.  It  was  truly  the  apple 
of  their  eye.  To  their  concern  for  it  the  Constitu- 
tion almost  owes  its  existence.  They  brought  this,  the 


FIFTY  THOUSAND   VOLUNTEERS.  115 

object  of  their  choice  affections,  and  delivered  it  to  the 
custody  of  this  House,  as  a  tender  parent  would  deliver 
the  hope  of  his  declining  years,  with  a  trembling  solici- 
tude, to  its  selected  guardians.  And  how  have  we  con- 
ducted in  this  sacred  trust  ?  Why,  delivered  it  over  to 
the  care  of  twelve  dry-nurses,  concerning  whose  tem- 
pers we  know  nothing ;  for  whose  intentions  we  cannot 
vouch ;  and  who,  for  any  thing  we  know,  may  some  of 
them  have  an  interest  in  destroying  it. 

Yes,  sir,  the  people  did  intrust  us  with  that  great 
power,  —  the  regulation  of  commerce.  It  was  their 
most  precious  jewel.  Richer  than  all  the  mines  of  Peru 
and  Golconda.  But  we  have  sported  with  it  as  though 
it  were  common  dust.  With  a  thoughtless  indifference, 
—  in  the  dead  of  the  night,  not  under  the  cover  of  the 
cheering  pinions  of  our  eagle,  but  under  the  mortal 
shade  of  the  bat's  wing,  —  we  surrendered  this  rich  de- 
posit. It  is  gone.  And  we  have  nothing  else  to  do 
than  to  beg  back,  at  the  footstool  of  the  executive,  the 
people's  patrimony.  Sir,  I  know  the  answer  which  will, 
and  it  is  the  only  one  which  can,  be  given.  "  There  is 
no  fear  of  an  improper  use  of  this  power  by  the  Pres- 
ident and  Senate.  There  is  no  danger  in  trusting 
this  most  excellent  man."  Why,  sir,  this  is  the  very 
slave's  gibberish.  What  other  reason  could  the  cross- 
legged  Turk  or  the  cringing  Parisian  give  for  that 
implicit  confidence  they  yield  to  their  sovereigns,  except 
that  it  is  impossible  they  should  abuse  their  power. 

The  state  of  things  I  mention  does  not  terminate  in 
mere  verbal  precision  or  constructive  distinctions.  The 
very  continuance  of  the  measure  has,  in  my  opinion,  its 
root  in  the  situation  which  results  from  this,  as  I  deem 


116  SPEECH   ON    THE   BILL    FOR   RAISING 

it,  abuse  of  our  constitutional  powers.  Does  any  man 
believe,  if  the  embargo  had  been  originally  limited, 
that  a  bill  continuing  it  could  now  be  passed  through 
all  the  branches  ?  I  know  that  gentlemen  who  origi- 
nally voted  for  this  embargo,  and  will  probably  for  the 
enforcement  of  it,  have  urged  the  situation  of  this 
House,  in  relation  to  it,  as  a  reason  for  farther  adher- 
ence. "  It  is  a  measure  of  the  executive,"  say  they. 
"  Suppose  this  House  should  pass  a  law  repealing  it. 
Should  he  negative,  what  effect  would  result  but  to 
show  distracted  councils.  In  the  present  situation  of 
our  country,  nothing  is  so  desirable  as  unanimity."  I 
know  that,  substantially,  such  arguments  have  been 
urged. 

[MR.  J.  G.  JACKSON  wished  the  gentleman  to  name 
the  persons  to  whom  he  alluded. 

MR.  QUINCY  said  that  he  did  not  deem  himself  bound 
to  state  names  connected  with  facts  by  which  he  had 
acquired  the  knowledge  of  particular  dispositions  in  the 
House.  It  was  enough  for  him  to  state  them,  and  leave 
the  nation  to  judge  if  there  were,  under  the  circum- 
stances, any  thing  improbable  or  unnatural  in  them. 

MR.  NICHOLAS  called  the  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts to  order.  He  regretted  to  say  that  throughout  the 
whole  session  there  had  been  a  total  departure  from  the 
idea  which  he  had  of  order.  When  it  was  attempted  to 
palm  upon  those  with  whom  he  acted  opinions  which 
all  must  disclaim,  he  was  compelled  to  object  to  the  dis- 
orderly course  pursued. 

MR.  QUINCY  said  that  he  had  no  intention  to  palm 
upon  any  gentlemen  sentiments  which  they  disavowed. 
We  did  not  suppose  that  the  gentlemen  who  enter- 


FIFTY   THOUSAND   VOLUNTEEES.  117 

tained  such  sentiments  would  disavow  them.  He  said 
he  should  certainly  not  mention  names.  He  did  not 
think  that  the  argument  derived  any  strength  from  the 
fact  that  such  expressions  had  been  used  by  any  gen- 
tleman. They  are  natural  and  inevitable  from  the  situ- 
ation in  which  gentlemen  are  placed  in  relation  to  the 
executive.  Men  willing  to  take  off  the  embargo,  yet 
not  willing  to  counteract  the  system  of  the  President, 
were  necessitated  to  adopt  such  reasoning  as  this.  It 
was  unavoidable  when  they  came  to  reflect  upon  the 
powers  which  remained  to  this  House  in  relation  to  the 
repeal  of  this  law. 

MR.  NICHOLAS  required  that  the  gentleman  should 
observe  order. 

MB.  G.  W.  CAMPBELL  said  that,  as  the  gentleman  had 
made  a  reflection  on  members  in  the  majority,  he  must 
be  permitted  to  observe  that  he  utterly  disclaimed  any 
such  opinion  as  the  gentleman  had  charged  indiscrimi- 
nately upon  the  majority. 

MR.  QUINCY  said  that  he  had  made  no  such  indis- 
criminate charge  on  the  majority.  An  attempt  had 
been  made  to  give  the  discussion  a  turn  which  he 
neither  anticipated  nor  intended.  I  understand,  said 
Mr.  Quincy,  the  cause  of  this  interruption.  It  is  not 
the  fact  intimated,  but  the  force  of  the  argument  stated, 
which  startles  gentlemen  from  their  seats.  They  like 
not  to  hear  the  truth  elucidated  concerning  their  abuse 
of  power  intrusted  to  them  by  the  people.  In  reply  to 
the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Eppes),  who  alleged 
that  for  party  purposes  the  embargo  had  been  repre- 
sented permanent,  I  undertook  to  show  that,  as  far  as 
respects  this  House,  it  was  to  all  intents  permanent. 
This  is  the  insupportable  position.  The  embargo  — 


118  SPEECH   ON  THE   BILL  FOR   RAISING 

MR.  J.  G.  JACKSON  called  Mr.  Quincy  to  order.  This 
disorder,  he  said,  had  progressed  too  long.  There  had 
not  only  been  disorder  on  the  floor  of  the  House,  but  in 
the  galleries,  and  from  British  subjects  too,  which  had 
interrupted  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Eppes), 
whilst  he  had  been  speaking  a  few  moments  ago.  It 
was  not  in  order  to  discuss  the  subject  of  embargo  on 
this  question.  Every  thing  which  presented  itself  to 
the  House  was  made  a  question  of  embargo.  It  was 
the  watchword  of  the  day. 

The  SPEAKEE  requested  Mr.  Quincy  to  take  his  seat, 
and  asked  Mr.  Jackson  to  put  down  in  writing  the 
words  to  which  he  objected. 

MR.  JACKSON  said  he  could  not  specify  particular 
words  to  which  he  had  objected,  unless,  indeed,  he  were 
to  include  the  gentleman's  whole  speech.  He  wished, 
however,  to  know  of  the  Speaker,  is  it  in  order,  on  a 
question  for  raising  volunteer  troops,  to  discuss  the 
constitutionality  of  the  embargo  ? 

The  SPEAKER  observed  that  a  very  wide  range  had 
been  taken  in  debate,  and  that,  excluding  personal  mat- 
ter, the  gentleman  was  in  order  to  reply  to  observations 
of  other  gentlemen. 

MR.  QUINCY  said  that  he  had  been  draAvn  unexpect- 
edly into  this  course  of  debate  by  following  the  gentle- 
man from  Virginia  (Mr.  Eppes).  He  said  that  he 
wished  to  lay  before  the  House  and  the  nation  — 

MR.  EPPES  said  that  he  had  said  nothing  concerning 
the  supplementary  embargo  law,  now  before  the  House, 
which  he  conceived  the  gentleman  was  about  to  intro- 
duce into  the  discussion.  He  hoped  the  gentleman 
would  suspend  his  observations  upon  the  subject  until 


FIFTY  THOUSAND   VOLUNTEERS.  119 

it  came  before  the  House,  when,  notwithstanding  all 
the  clamor  on  the  subject,  it  would  be  found  that  there 
was  not  a  provision  contained  in  it  which  was  not  to 
be  found  in  the  present  revenue  laws. 

MR.  QUINCY  said  he  was  not  about  to  bring  the  sup- 
plementary embargo  bill  into  debate.  The  gentleman 
had  asserted  that  the  embargo  law  was  not  permanent ; 
that  the  Constitution  had  not  been  violated.  He  had 
taken  the  gentleman  upon  that  ground.  And  the  course 
of  his  observations  had  been  to  prove  that  the  embargo 
was  permanent,  so  far  as  respected  the  powers  of  this 
House  to  repeal,  and  that  the  Constitution  had  been 
violated. 

MR.  EPPES  said  that  he  had  not  said  that  the  Consti- 
tution had  not  been  violated. 

MR.  QUINCY  said  that  he  had  no  particular  inclina- 
tion to  speak  at  that  moment,  and  if  gentlemen  did  not 
wish  to  hear  — 

MR.  EPPES  said  he  had  no  objection  to  hear  the  gen- 
tleman state  any  violations  of  the  Constitution,  and  he 
should  take  the  privilege  of  a  member  to  answer  them, 
if  they  were  plausible. 

MR.  MASTERS  made  some  observations  upon  the  point 
of  order ;  and,  as  the  House  was  rather  in  a  state  of 
agitation,  moved  to  adjourn.  Mr.  Quincy  having  given 
way  for  the  purpose,  —  negatived  ;  ayes,  22.] 

Notwithstanding  all  the  interruptions  I  have  experi- 
enced, my  observations  have  been  perfectly  in  order. 
The  reason -I  am  opposed  to  the  resolution  is,  that  the 
force  proposed  to  be  raised  is,  in  my  opinion,  intended 
not  to  meet  a  foreign  enemy,  but  to  enforce  the  embargo 
laws.  Now  is  it  not  the  most  pertinent  and  strongest 


120  SPEECH   ON    THE    BILL   FOR    RAISING 

of  all  arguments  against  the  adoption  of  such  a -resolu- 
tion, to  prove  that  the  powers  of  the  executive,  in  these 
respects,  already  transcend  the  limits  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  that  these  laws  proposed  thus  to  be  enforced 
are  open  violations  of  it  ?  Considering,  however,  the 
temper  of  the  House,  I  shall  limit  myself  to  the  state- 
ment and  elucidation  of  a  single  position.  And  the 
argument  I  shall  offer  will  be  only  in  outline.  I  will 
not  enter  into  the  wide  field  which  the  greatness  of  the 
question  naturally  opens.  I  know  that,  as  soon  as  my 
position  is  stated,  gentlemen  advocating  the  present 
measures  will  be  ready  to  exclaim,  It  is  a  small  objec- 
tion! But  I  warn  gentlemen  that,  small  as  it  may 
appear  to  them,  if  the  principle  receive  the  sanction  of 
the  people  and  the  support  of  the  State  legislatures, 
there  is  an  end  of  this  destructive  system  of  embargo. 

The  position  I  take,  and  which  I  mean  to  maintain  is, 
that  those  provisions  of  the  embargo  laws  which  assume 
to  regulate  the  coasting  trade,  between  ports  and  ports 
of  the  same  State,  are  gross  invasions  of  the  rights  of 
the  States,  and  palpable  grasps  of  power  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  Constitution.  I  ask  the  attention  of  the 
House  to  a  very  short  argument  upon  this  subject.  I 
present  it,  not  by  way  of  crimination,  but  as  worthy  of 
its  consideration  and  candid  examination.  I  feel  no 
passions  on  the  question.  If  any  have  been  exhibited 
by  me,  they  were  caught  at  the  flame  enkindled  by  the 
gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Eppes). 

The  powers  granted  to  Congress,  in  relation  to  com- 
merce, are  contained  in  the  eighth  section  of  the  first 
article  of  the  Constitution,  in  these  words :  "  The  Con- 
gress shall  have  power  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign 


FIFTY   THOUSAND   VOLUNTEERS.  121 

nations,  and  among  the  several  States,  and  with  the 
Indian  tribes."  The  particular  power  to  which  I  object, 
as  being  assumed,  if  granted  at  all,  is  contained  within 
the  terms,  "  commerce  among  the  several  States."  In 
reference  to  which  I  ask  this  question  :  Can  the  grant  of 
a  power  to  regulate  commerce  among  the  States,  lay  any 
fair  construction,  be  made  to  include  a  power  to  regu- 
late commerce  within  a  State?  It  is  a  simple  question. 
The  strength  and  certainty  of  the  conclusion  results 
from  its  simplicity.  There  is  no  need  of  any  refined 
argument  to  arrive  at  conviction.  It  is  a  plain  appeal 
to  the  common-sense  of  the  people,  —  to  that  common- 
sense  which,  on  most  practical  subjects,  is  a  much  surer 
guide  than  all  the  reasoning  of  the  learned.  It  is  scarce 
possible,  there  can  be  but  one  answer  to  this  question. 
To  bring  the  subject  more  directly  into  the  course  of 
the  reasonings  of  common  life,  suppose  that  ten  house- 
holders who  live  in  a  neighborhood  should  agree  upon 
a  tribunal  which  should  possess  powers  to  regulate 
commerce  or  intercourse  among  their  houses,  could 
such  an  authority  be  fairly  extended  to  the  regulation 
of  the  intercourse  of  the  members  of  their  families 
within  their  respective  houses?  Under  a  grant  of 
power  like  this,  would  such  a  tribunal  have  a  right  to 
regulate  the  intercourse  between  room  and  room  within 
each  dwelling-house  ?  It  is  impossible.  Nothing  can 
be  plainer.  The  general  government  has  no  color  for 
interfering  with  the  interior  commerce  of  each  State, 
let  it  be  carried  on  by  water  or  by  land.  The  regula- 
tion of  the  commerce  between  ports  and  ports  of  the 
same  State  belongs  exclusively  to  the  States  respec- 
tively. 


122  SPEECH   ON  THE   BILL  FOR   RAISING 

111  farther  support  of  this  position,  a  strong  argument 
results  from  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article :  "  No 
tax  or  duty  shall  be  laid  on  articles  exported  from  any 
State.  No  preference  shall  be  given  by  any  regulation 
of  commerce  or  revenue  to  the  ports  of  one  State  over 
those  of  another,  nor  shall  vessels  bound  to  or  from  one 
State  be  obliged  to  enter,  clear,  or  pay  duties  in  an- 
other." In  this  clause  of  the  Constitution,  the  people 
restrict  the  general  power  over  commerce  granted  to 
Congress.  And  to  what  objects  do  these  restrictions 
apply  ?  To  exports  from  a  State  ;  to  preferences  of 
the  ports  of  one  State  over  those  of  another ;  to  ves- 
sels bound  to  or  from  another  State.  Not  one  word 
of  restriction  of  the  powers  of  Congress  touching  that 
great  portion  of  commerce  between  ports  and  ports  of 
the  same  State.  Now  can  any  thing  be  more  conclusive 
that  the  general  power  of  regulating  commerce  did  not, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  people,  include  the  right  to  regu- 
late commerce  between  ports  and  ports  of  the  same 
State  than  this  fact,  that  they  have  not  thought  it  nec- 
essary even  to  enumerate  it  among  these  restrictions  ? 
If  it  were  included  in  the  grant  of  the  general  power, 
can  a  reason  be  shown  why  it  was  not,  as  well  as  the 
others,  included  within  these  restrictions  ?  That  it  is 
not  provided  for  among  these  restrictions  is  perfect  con- 
viction, to  my  mind,  that  it  was  never  included  in  the 
general  power.  A  contrary  doctrine  leads  to  this  mon- 
strous absurdity,  that  Congress,  which,  in  consequence 
of  these  constitutional  restrictions,  can  neither  grant 
any  preference  to  the  ports  of  one  State  over  those  of 
another  State,  nor  oblige  vessels  to  enter,  clear,  or  pay 
duties  when  bound  to  or  from  the  ports  of  one  State  in 


FIFTY   THOUSAND   VOLUNTEERS.  123 

another,  yet  that  it  may  grant  preferences  to  the  ports 
of  one  State  over  ports  in  the  same  State,  and  may  oblige 
vessels  to  enter,  clear,  and  pay  duties  when  bound  from 
port  to  port  within  the  same  State.  This  enormous 
consequence  is  inevitable.  The  conclusion,  therefore, 
to  my  mind,  is  perfectly  clear,  that  the  reason  why  the 
people  did  not  restrict  the  abuse  of  this  species  of  power 
was,  that  the  power  itself  was  not  granted  to  Congress. 
I  shall  state  only  one  other  corroborative  argument, 
drawn  from  another  part  of  the  Constitution.  By  the 
second  clause  of  the  tenth  section  and  first  article,  it  is 
provided  that  "  no  State  shall,  without  the  consent  of 
Congress,  lay  any  imposts  or  duties  on  imports  or  ex- 
ports, except  what  may  be  absolutely  necessary  for 
executing  its  inspection  laws,  &c.  Now  can  it  for  one 
moment  be  admitted  that,  in  consequence  of  this  restric- 
tion, the  individual  States  are  prohibited  from  laying 
transit  duties  on  articles  passing  from  port  to  port 
within  their  State  limits  ?  Can  the  States  lay  no  toll 
upon  ferries  across  their  rivers  ?  no  tax  upon  vessels 
plying  up  and  down  their  rivers,  or  across  their  bays  ? 
May  not  the  State  of  New  York  impose  a  duty  upon 
vessels  going  from  Hudson  or  Albany  to  New  York? 
Yet,  if  it  be  true  that  the  general  power  of  regulating 
commerce  among  the  States  includes  the  power  of  regu- 
lating commerce  between  ports  and  ports  of  the  same 
State,  all  this  great  branch  of  State  prerogative  is  abso- 
lutely gone  from  the  individual  States,  —  a  construction 
of  the  Constitution  in  which,  if  realized  by  the  people 
and  the  legislature  of  the  States  in  all  its  consequences, 
they  never  can  acquiesce.  The  language  of  this  clause 


124  SPEECH   ON   THE    BILL   FOR   RAISING 

is  in  strict  consonance  with  that  construction  of  the 
Constitution  for  which  I  contend.  It  strongly,  and  con- 
clusively to  my  mind,  implies  that  the  general  power 
does  not  include  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  be- 
tween ports  and  ports  of  the  same  State.  The  language 
of  this  clause  is,  "  no  State  shall  lay  any  imposts  or 
duties  on  imports  or  exports."  These  terms  "  imports 
and  exports  "  are  exclusively  appropriate  to  duties  upon 
goods  passing  into  a  State  or  passing  out  of  a  State,  and 
can  never  be  made,  by  any  fair  construction,  to  extend 
to  duties  upon  goods  passing  wholly  within  the  limits  of 
a  State.  On  goods  in  this  situation,  —  that  is,  on  goods 
passing  between  ports  and  ports  of  the  same  State,  —  the 
individual  States  have,  notwithstanding  this  restriction 
in  the  Constitution,  the  power  to  lay  transit  duties.  Of 
consequence,  the  regulation  of  this  branch  of  trade  is  not 
included  in  the  grant  to  Congress  of  the  general  power 
over  commerce  among  the  States. 

This  is  the  point  of  view  which  I  take  in  this  matter, 
of  the  limits  of  the  Constitution.  On  this  ground  it  is, 
that  I  asserted  that  the  rights  of  the  States  have  been 
invaded  in  your  embargo  laws,  and  that  this  legislature 
has  grasped  a  power  not  given  to  it  by  the  Constitution. 
And,  so  far  as  the  liberties  of  this  people  are  dependent 
upon  the  preservation  of  the  State  and  national  authori- 
ties in  their  respective  orbits,  I  hesitate  not  to  declare 
the  embargo  laws  a  manifest  infringement  of  those  lib- 
erties. 

On  a  question  of  this  magnitude,  I  cannot  condescend 
to  inquire  whether,  in  the  early  revenue  laws,  any  reg- 
ulations were  made  affecting  this  particular  branch  of 


FIFTY  THOUSAND   VOLUNTEERS.  125 

trade.  A  practice  in  direct  violation  of  the  Consti- 
tution can  have  no  binding  force.  Violations  of  the 
Constitution  touching  only  a  few  solitary  individuals, 
small  in  amount  or  in  inconvenience,  may  for  a  long 
period  be  submitted  to  without  a  struggle  or  a  murmur. 
When  the  extension  of  the  principle  begins  to  affect 
whole  classes  of  the  community,  the  interest  of  the 
nation  claims  a  solemn  and  satisfactory  decision.  The 
truth  is,  I  can  find  but  a  single  attempt  in  all  your  rev- 
enue laws  contrary  to  the  construction  for  which  I 
contend.  In  the  case  of  carrying  distilled  spirits,  or 
imported  goods  of  a  specified  amount,  from  port  to  port 
within  a  State,  the  master  is  obliged  to  make  a  manifest 
and  take  an  oath  that  the  duties  have  been  paid.  The 
infringement  of  the  Constitution  was  in  this  instance, 
and  in  its  immediate  consequences,  so  trifling  that  it  has 
passed  without  notice,  and  been  submitted  to  without  a 
question.  But,  surely,  on  the  silent  acquiescence  of 
the  people  in  such  a  practice  as  this  can  never  be  built 
the  fabric  of  so  enormous  a  power  as  your  embargo  laws 
attemfft  to  exercise. 

Gentlemen  say  the  embargo  is  brought  into  view  on 
all  occasions.  Certainly,  sir,  it  is  connected  with  almost 
all  national  questions.  I  have  no  objection  to  voting 
for  fifty  thousand  men,  if  I  can  be  informed  to  what  use 
they  are  to  be  applied.  Let  me  only  understand  the 
system  proposed.  Is  it  intended  to  repeal  the  embargo 
and  go  to  war?  Or  are  these  men  only  intended  to 
enforce  it  ?  If  the  former,  I  have  no  objection  to  any 
requisite  army.  If  the  latter,  I  am  in  dirct  hostility  to 
this  proposition.  Deeming  the  embargo  laws  uriconsti- 


126       SPEECH   GIST  THE   BILL  FOE   RAISING,   ETC. 

tutional,  and  powers  vested  in  the  executive  which 
ought  never  to  have  passed  out  of  the  possession  of  this 
House,  I  will  never  acquiesce  in  augmentation  of  the 
military  until  I  am  satisfied  that  the  system  is  not  to 
support  by  it  still  farther  the  violations  of  this  Consti- 
tution. 


SPEECH 

ON   THE   BILL    FOR   HOLDING  AN    EXTRA    SES- 
SION  OF    CONGRESS   IN   MAY   NEXT. 

JAN.   19,  1809. 


SPEECH 

ON  THE  BILL  FOR  HOLDING  AN  EXTRA  SESSION  OF 
CONGRESS  IN   MAY  NEXT. 

JAN.  19,  1809. 


[THE  discontents  caused  by  the  embargo  had  grown  so  fierce 
that  the  Democrats  themselves  had  become  alarmed  by  them. 
The  Northern  public  men,  who  had  stood  by  Mr.  Jefferson  in  his 
favorite  policy  of  conquering  England  through  the  ruin  of  Amer- 
ican commerce,  began,  towards  the  close  of  his  administration,  to 
tremble  for  themselves,  if  not  for  their  country.  He  still  re- 
mained firm  in  his  faith,  and  saw  with  grief  the  approaching 
defection  of  his  followers.  Even  sight  could  not  shake  his  faith. 
After  the  first  disturbance  of  trade  arising  from  an  embargo  was 
past,  the  English  merchants,  far  from  asking  for  the  restoration 
of  American  commerce  through  the  repeal  of  the  Orders  in 
Council,  wished  them  to  be  made  more  rigid  yet,  so  that  they  them- 
selves might  have  the  monopoly  of  the  continental  trade ;  thus 
literally  fulfilling  Mr.  Quincy's  prophecy  at  the  time  the  em- 
bargo was  first  proposed.  The  importation  of  cotton  into  Eng- 
land was  first  absolutely  prohibited,  in  order  to  cripple  the 
manufacturing  of  the  continent,  which  Bonaparte  wished  to 
establish  as  a  part  of  his  system.  Then,  as  the  Democratic  ora- 
tors and  presses  denounced  the  duty  which  England  demanded 
for  the  privilege  of  re-exportation  to  the  continent,  as  a  tribute 
to  that  haughty  power,  the  British  government  removed  this 
particular  ground  of  complaint  by  forbidding  any  importation 
whatever  from  America  for  the  purpose  of  reshipment.  And 

9 


130  SPEECH    ON   THE   BILL 

Mr.  Canning  called  the  particular  attention  of  the  American 
government,  through  Mr.  Pinkney,  its  representative,  "to  this 
concession  to  the  sensibilities  of  the  American  people  "  ! 

Mr.  Jefferson's  reign  was  drawing  to  a  close,  and  the  alle- 
giance of  his  partisans  naturally  grew  weaker  and  weaker;  and 
during  the  short  session  of  1808-9,  previous  to  the  accession  of 
Mr.  Madison,  the  unquestioning  obedience  of  the  Democratic 
majority  in  Congress  to  the  behests  of  Mr.  Jefferson  was  greatly 
though  secretly  shaken.  The  New  England  and  New  York 
members  showed  strong  symptoms  of  rebellion,  which  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son attributed  to  "  an  unaccountable  revolution  of  opinion  and 
kind  of  panic  "  among  them.  The  revolution  in  opinion  and  the 
panic  grew  out  of  their  observation  of  the  effects  of  the  embargo 
on  the  interests  of  their  constituents  and  their  apprehensions  of 
its  influence  at  the  polls.  In  this  state  of  things,  an  extra  ses- 
sion of  Congress  was  proposed,  in  May,  1809,  by  way  of  pacify- 
ing the  growing  discontent  under  the  embargo  with  the  prospect 
of  its  removal,  but  with  the  additional  pretence  that  the  time 
would  then  have  arrived  for  substituting  an  open  war  for  that 
by  commercial  restrictions.  It  was  on  this  bill  that  Mr.  Quincy 
made  the  following  speech,  which  caused  a  great  excitement  in 
the  House,  and  made  a  strong  impression  on  the  country.  —  ED.] 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  If  the  bill  under  consideration  had 
no  other  aspect  on  the  fates  of  this  country  than  its 
terms  indicate,  I  should  have  continued  silent.  If  the 
question  upon  it  involved  no  other  consequences  than 
those  of  personal  inconvenience  to  us  and  of  expense  to 
the  public,  I  would  not  now  ask  the  indulgence  of  the 
House.  But  I  deem  this  bill  to  be  a  materially  com- 
ponent part  of  that  system  of  commercial  restriction 
under  which  the  best  hopes  of  this  nation  are  oppressed. 
•  I  consider  this  measure  as  intended  to  induce  this  peo- 
ple still  longer  to  endure  patiently  the  embargo,  and  all 
the  evils  which  it  brings  in  its  train,  by  exciting  and 


FOR   HOLDING  AN  EXTRA   SESSION.  131 

fostering  in  them  delusive  expectations.  A  great  crisis 
is,  to  all  human  appearance,  advancing  upon  our  coun- 
try. Gentlemen  may  attempt  to  conceal  it  from  the 
nation,  perhaps  from  themselves,  but  every  step  they 
take  has  an  influence  upon  that  crisis  ;  and,  small  as  they 
may  deem  the  decision  on  this  bill,  in  its  effects  it  will 
be  among  the  most  important  of  any  of  the  acts  of  this 
session. 

It  is  very  painful  to  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  be.  compelled 
to  place  my  opposition  to  this  bill  on  ground  resulting 
from  the  conduct  of  the  administration  of  this  nation. 
I  say,  sir,  this  is  very  painful  to  me,  because  I  have  no 
personal  animosity  to  any  individual  of  that  administra- 
tion. Nor,  if  I  know  myself,  am  I  induced  to  this  oppo- 
sition from  any  party  motive.  But,  sir,  acting  in  a 
public  capacity,  and  reasoning  concerning  events  as 
they  occur,  with  reference  to  the  high  duties  of  my 
station,  I  shall  not,  when  I  arrive  in  my  conception  at 
a  just  conclusion,  shrink  from  any  proper  responsibility 
in  spreading  that  conclusion  before  this  House  and 
nation.  One  thing  I  shall  hope  and  certainly  shall 
deserve  from  the  friends  of  administration,  —  the  ac- 
knowledgment that  I  shall  aim  no  insidious  blow.  It 
shall  be  made  openly,  distinctly,  in  the  daylight.  Be 
it  strong  or  be  it  weak,  I  invite  those  friends  to  parry 
it.  If  they  are  successful,  I  shall  rejoice  in  it  not  less 
than  they. 

This  is  the  position  in  relation  to  the  conduct  of  ad- 
ministration which  I  take,  and  on  which  I  rest  my 
opposition  to  this  bill :  that  this  House,  when  it  passed 
the  embargo  law,  was  under  a  deception  touching  the 
motives  of  administration  in  recommending  that  meas- 


132  SPEECH    ON   THE   BILL 

ure ;  that  it  has  been,  in  adopting  that  measure,  instru- 
mental in  deceiving  this  people  as  to  the  motives  which 
induced  that  law  ;  that  if  it  passes  this  bill  it  will  again 
act  under  a  deception  touching  those  motives,  and  again 
be  instrumental,  unwarily  and  unwillingly,  as  I  believe, 
in  deceiving  this  people  in  relation  to  them.  I  think  I 
have  stated  my  ground  of  opposition  so  clearly  as  to 
admit  of  no  misconception,  and  invite  gentlemen  to 
meet  me  candidly  upon  it.  When  I  speak  of  deception, 
I  beg  gentlemen  not  to  misunderstand  me.  I  will  be  as 
just  to  the  administration  as  I  mean  to  be  true  and  fear- 
less in  the  performance  of  my  duty  to  the  people.  By 
this  term,  I  do  not  mean  any  moral  obliquity,  any  direct 
falsehood  or  palpable  misrepresentation.  But  I  intend 
by  it  political  deception,  —  that  species  of  cunning,  not 
uncommon  among  politicians,  which  Lord  Bacon  calls 
"left-handed  wisdom."  This  is  exhibited  when  osten- 
sible and  popular  motives  are  presented  as  inducements 
to  a  particular  line  of  conduct,  and  the  real  and  critical 
ones  are  kept  behind  the  curtain.  This  is  practised 
when  those  who  have  obtained  an  influence  over  others 
troll  them  by  the  means  of  fair  promises  upon  trundles 
in  a  downhill  path,  and  so  are  enabled  gradually  to 
shove  them,  by  gentle  motions,  farther  than  at  first  they 
had  any  intention  to  go.  We  witness  this  species  of 
political  deception  when  we  see  men  meshed  in  the 
toils  of  a  complicated  policy,  and  then  dragged  whither- 
soever their  leaders  will,  through  sheer  shame  at  break- 
ing the  cords  of  that  net  in  which  they  have  suffered 
themselves  incautiously  to  be  entangled. 

In  support  of  my  first  position,  —  that  this  House, 
when  it  passed  the  embargo  law,  was  under  a  deception 


FOR   HOLDING  AN   EXTRA   SESSION.  133 

touching  the  motives  of  administration,  —  I  shall  ask 
the  House  to  recollect,  as  far  as  possible,  all  the  motives 
which  induced  it  to  pass  the  embargo  law,  and  then  I 
will  attempt  to  show  that  the  motives  of  administration 
were  different,  in  kind  or  in  degree,  from  those  which 
operated  on  this  floor.  I  will  recapitulate  them  as  dis- 
tinctly as  possible,  excluding  no  one  which  I  have  any 
reason  to  think  had  an  influence  in  the  House,  imput- 
ing none  which  did  not  exist.  One  motive  was  the  pres- 
ervation of  our  resources  ;  that  is,  the  saving  of  our 
seamen  and  navigation.  This  was  the  ostensible  and 
popular  motive,  —  that  avowed  by  administration.  An- 
other motive  was,  that  many  thought  war  was  inevitable, 
and  that  embargo  would  give  an  opportunity  to  prepare 
for  it.  Again :  some  thought  that  it  would  have  a 
good  effect  on  the  negotiation  then  daily  expected,  and 
frighten  Mr.  Rose.  Again :  others  supposed  that  it 
would  straiten  Great  Britain  at  a  moment  the  most 
favorable  to  make  her  feel  the  importance  of  the  United 
States.  The  system  of  commercial  pressure  was  in  full 
operation  in  Europe  ;  and,  should  this  country  complete 
the  circle  of  compression,  they  thought  that  it  would 
be  impossible  for  her  not  to  yield  to  our  pretensions. 
Again  :  some  thought  that  the  French  emperor  was  con- 
tending for  maritime  rights,  and  that  it  was  time  for  us 
to  co-operate.  [Here  Messrs.  Smilie  and  Eppes  required 
of  Mr.  Quincy  to  know  to  whom  he  had  allusion.]  I 
am  surprised,  said  Mr.  Quincy,  to  hear  that  question 
asked  by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania.  If,  how- 
ever, it  be  denied  as  a  motive,  I  have  no  objection  to 
withdraw  it.  What  I  am  now  doing  ought  to  excite  no 
passion.  I  am  not  about  to  question  the  motives  of  this 


134  SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL 

House.  I  am  only  recapitulating  all  those  which  there 
is  any  reason  to  believe  existed.  If  any  gentlemen  say 
a  particular  one  did  not  exist,  for  the  present  argument 
I  reject  it.  My  present  object  only  is  to  be  complete  in 
my  enumeration,  in  order  to  make  more  forcible  the 
bearing  of  my  principal  argument,  that  it  does  not 
include  those  which  principally  had  an  influence  with 
administration  in  recommending  the  measure.  I  do  not 
recollect  but  two  other  motives  besides  those  already 
mentioned.  Some  voted  for  this  embargo,  because  they 
thought  this  House  ought  to  do  something,  and  they 
did  not  know  what  else  to  do.  Others  intimated  that 
it  might  have  an  effect  to  injure  France  in  the  few 
West  India  possessions  which  remained  to  her.  But 
this  was  urged  so  faintly,  and  with  such  little  show  of 
reason,  that  I  doubt  if  it  were  an  influential  motive 
with  any  man.  The  preceding  enumeration  includes 
all  the  motives,  as  I  believe,  either  urged  on  this  floor, 
or  in  any .  way  silently  operative  in  producing  that 
measure.  Now  I  do  not  think  I  state  my  position  too 
strongly  when  I  say  that  not  a  man  in  this  House 
deemed  the  embargo  intended  chiefly  as  a  measure  of 
coercion  on  Great  Britain  ;  that  it  was  to  be  made  per- 
manent at  all  hazards,  until  it  had  effected  that  object ; 
and  that  nothing  else  effectual  was  to  be  done  for  the 
support  of  our  maritime  rights.  If  any  individual  was 
influenced  by  such  motives,  certainly  they  were  not 
those  of  a  majority  of  this  House.  Now,  sir,  on  my 
conscience,  I  do  believe  that  these  were  the  motives 
and  intentions  of  administration  when  they  recom- 
mended the  embargo  to  the  adoption  of  this  House. 
Sir,  I  believe  these  continue  to  be  still  their  motives  and 


FOR   HOLDING  AN  EXTRA   SESSION.  135 

intentions.  And  if  this  were  fairly  understood  by  the 
people  to  be  the  fact,  I  do  not  believe  that  they  would 
countenance  the  continuance  of  such  an  oppressive 
measure  for  such  a  purpose  without  better  assurance 
than  has  ever  yet  been  given  to  them,  that,  by  adher- 
ence to  this  policy,  the  great  and  real  object  of  it  will 
be  effected. 

The  proposition  which  I  undertake  to  maintain  con- 
sists of  three  particulars:  first,  that  it  was  and  is  the 
intention  of  administration  to  coerce  Great  Britain  by 
the  embargo,  and  that  this,  and  not  precaution,  is  and 
was  the  principal  object  of  the  policy ;  second,  that  it 
was  and  is  intended  to  persevere  in  this  measure  until 
it  effect,  if  possible,  the  proposed  object;  third,  that 
it  was  and  is  the  intention  of  administration  to  do 
nothing  else  effectual  in  support  of  our  maritime  rights. 

Having  in  my  own  mind  a  perfect  conviction  of  the 
truth  of  every  one  of  these  propositions,  I  should  be 
false  to  myself  and  to  my  country  at  such  a  crisis  as 
this  if  I  did  not  state  that  conviction  to  this  House,  and 
through  it  to  my  fellow-citizens.  I  shall  not,  however, 
take  refuge  in  mere  declaration  of  individual  opinion,  or 
content  myself  simply  with  assertions.  I  shall  state  the 
grounds  and  the  reasonings  by  which  I  arrive  at  this  re- 
sult. I  invite  gentlemen  to  reply  to  them  in  the  spirit 
in  which  they  are  offered,  not  with  the  design  of  awak- 
ening any  personal  or  party  passion,  but  to  fulfil  the 
high  duties  which,  according  to  my  apprehension  of 
them,  I  owe  to  this  people. 

When  we  attempt  to  penetrate  into  the  intentions  of 
men,  we  are  all  sensible  how  thick  and  mysterious  is 
that  veil  which,  by  the  law  of  our  nature,  is  spread  over 


136  SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL 

them.  At  times  it  is  scarcely  permitted  to  an  individual 
to  be  absolutely  certain  of  his  own  motives.  But  when 
the  question  is  concerning  the  purposes  of  others,  ex- 
perience daily  tells  how  hard  a  task  it  is  to  descend  into 
the  hidden  recesses  of  the  mind,  and  pluck  intentions 
from  that  granite  cell  in  which  they  delight  to  incrust 
themselves.  The  only  mode  of  discovery  is  to  consider 
language  and  conduct  in  their  relation  to  the  real  and 
avowed  object,  and  thence  to  conclude,  as  fairly  as  we 
can,  which  is  the  one  and  which  the  other.  This  course 
I  shall  adopt.  If  there  be  any  thing  fallacious,  let  the 
friends  of  administration  oppose  it. 

When  I  state  that  precaution  was  not,  but  that  coer- 
cion on  Great  Britain  was,  the  principal  motive  with 
administration  in  advising  the  embargo,  I  do  not  mean 
to  aver  that  precaution  did  not  enter  into  the  view,  but 
only  that  it  was  a  minor  consideration,  and  did  by  no 
means  bear  so  great  a  proportion  in  producing  that 
policy  in  the  cabinet  as  it  did  before  the  world.  This 
will  appear  presently.  That  the  principal  object  of 
the  embargo  policy  was  coercion  on  Great  Britain,  I 
conclude  from  the  language  of  the  friends  of  adminis- 
tration in  this  country  and  the  language  which  the  min- 
ister of  administration  was  directed  to  hold  across  the 
Atlantic,  as  also  from  their  subsequent  conduct.  Here 
all  the  leading  calculations  had  relation  to  coercion. 
The  dependence  of  Great  Britain  upon  her  manufac- 
tures, and  their  dependence  upon  us  for  supply  and 
consumption ;  the  greatness  of  her  debt ;  her  solitary 
state,  engaged  with  a  world  in  arms  ;  the  fortunes  and 
the  power  of  the  French  emperor ;  the  certain  effect  of 
the  commercial  prohibitions  of  combined  Europe  upon 


FOE   HOLDING  AN  EXTKA   SESSION.  137 

her  maritime  power,  —  such  were  the  uniform  consider- 
ations in  support  of  this  policy  adduced  by  the  friends  of 
administration  on  this  floor  or  in  this  nation. 

There,  on  the  contrary,  the  considerations  urged  as 
the  motive  for  it  were  altogether  different.  Let  us 
recur  to  the  language  which  our  minister  was  directed 
to  hold  to  the  court  of  Great  Britain  on  this  subject. 
The  Secretary  of  State,  in  his  letter  of  the  23d  of 
December,  1807,  to  Mr.  Pinkney,  thus  dictates  to  him 
the  course  he  is  to  pursue  in  impressing  on  the  British 
cabinet  the  objects  of  the  embargo  :  "  I  avail  myself  of 
the  opportunity  to  enclose  you  a  copy  of  a  message  from 
the  President  to  Congress,  and  their  act,  in  pursuance 
of  it,  laying  an  embargo  on  our  vessels  and  exports. 
The  policy  and  causes  of  the  measure  are  explained  in 
the  message  itself.  But  it  may  be  proper  to  authorize 
you  to  assure  the  British  government,  as  has  been  just 
expressed  to  its  minister  here,  that  the  act  is  a  measure 
of  precaution  only,  called  for  by  the  occasion  ;  that  it  is 
to  be  considered  as  neither  hostile  in  its  character,  nor 
as  justifying  or  inviting  or  leading  to  hostility  with 
any  nation  whatever,  and  particularly  as  opposing  no 
obstacle  whatever  to  amicable  negotiations  and  satis- 
factory adjustments  with  Great  Britain  on  the  subjects 
of  difference  between  the  two  countries."  Here  our 
administration  expressly  declare  that  "  the  policy  and 
causes  of  the  measure  are  explained  in  the  message 
itself."  And  in  that  message  the  "  dangers  with  which 
our  vessels,  our  seamen,  and  merchandise  are  threat- 
ened ;  "  and  "  the  great  importance  of  keeping  in  safety 
these  essential  resources," — are  the  sole  causes  enumer- 
ated as  explanatory  of  that  policy.  At  the  court  of 


138  SPEECH    ON   THE    BILL 

Great  Britain,  then,  our  minister  was  directed  to  repre- 
sent this  measure  as  merely  intended  to  save  our  essen- 
tial resources.  But  administration  were  not  content 
with  the  direct  assertion  of  this  motive  :  they  abjure  any 
other.  They  expressly  direct  our  minister  "  to  assure 
the  British  government  that  the  act  is  a  measure  of 
precaution  only,"  and  u  that  it  opposes  no  obstacle 
whatever  to  amicable  negotiations  between  the  two 
countries."  Here,  then,  the  friends  of  administration, 
speaking,  as  is  well  known,  its  language  allege  in  this 
country  that  the  embargo  is  a  measure  of  coercion,  and 
that,  if  persisted  in  vigorously,  it  will  reduce  Great 
Britain  to  our  terms  ;  whereas  the  minister  of  the  United 
States,  speaking  also  the  language  of  administration, 
is  directed,  unequivocally,  to  deny  all  this  in  Great 
Britain,  and  to  exclude  the  idea  of  coercion  by  declar- 
ing it  to  be  a  measure  of  precaution  only.  Certainly, 
never  was  there  a  policy  more  perfectly  characteristic. 
It  is  precisely  that  polio}7  Avhich  one  deeply  skilled  in 
the  knowledge  of  the  human  character  described  as  "  a 
language  official  and  a  language  confidential,"  —  a  lan- 
guage for  the  ear  of  the  American  people,  an  opposite 
for  the  ear  of  the  British  cabinet.  If  this  had  been,  as 
the  minister  of  the  United  States  was  directed  to  assure 
the  British  cabinet,  "  a  measure  of  precaution  only," 
why  were  the  friends  of  administration  permitted  to 
advocate  it  as  a  measure  of  coercion  ?  Why  is  it 
continued  after  all  pretence  of  precaution  has  ceased  ? 
Did  not  administration  know  that,  if  it  were  supported 
here  on  the  ground  of  coercion,  this  fact  would  neces- 
sarily be  understood  in  Great  Britain,  and  that  it  must 
form  "  an  obstacle  to  negotiation,"  notwithstanding 


FOR   HOLDING  AN   EXTRA   SESSION.  139 

all  their  declarations  ?  If,  therefore,  it  had  been  truly 
"  a  measure  of  precaution  only,"  would  not  admin- 
istration have  been  the  first  to  have  counteracted 
such  an  opinion,  and  not  permitted  it  to  have  gained 
any  ground  here  or  elsewhere  ?  Yet  they  countenance 
this  opinion  in  America  at  the  moment  they  are  denying 
it  in  Great  Britain.  And  why  ?  The  reason  is  obvious, 
and  is  conclusive  in  support  of  the  position  that  it  was 
at  first,  as  it  is  now,  simply  a  measure  of  coercion.  The 
mode  adopted  by  administration  is  the  only  one  they 
could  adopt  with  any  hope  of  success  in  case  the  object 
was  coercion,  and  the  very  mode  they  would  avoid  had 
it  been  really  precaution.  There  is  not  an  individual  in 
the  United  States  so  much  of  a  child  as  not  to  know 
that  the  argument  of  precaution  was  good  only  for 
ninety,  or,  at  farthest,  an  hundred  and  twenty  days. 
After  our  ships  and  seamen  were  in  port,  which  within 
that  time  would  have  been  principally  the  case,  the  rea- 
son of  precaution  was  at  an  end.  Upon  the  principle 
that  the  self-interest  and  intelligence  of  the  merchant 
and  navigator  are  the  best  guides  and  patrons  of  their 
own  concerns,  and  that  the  stake  which  society  has  in 
the  property  of  the  citizen  is  better  secured  by  his  own 
knowledge  and  activity  than  by  any  general  regula- 
tions whatsoever,  it  was  necessary,  therefore,  in  the 
United  States,  to  resort  early  to  the  idea  of  coercion, 
and  to  press  it  vigorously:  otherwise  the  people  of 
America  could  not  be  induced  to  endurance  beyond  the 
time  when  the  reason  of  precaution  had  ceased.  In 
America,  therefore,  it  was  coercion.  But  in  Great 
Britain  the  state  of  things  was  altogether  the  reverse. 
Administration  knew  perfectly  well,  not  only  from  the 


140  SPEECH    ON   THE    BILL 

character  of  the  British  nation,  but  also  from  the  most 
common  principles  of  human  nature,  that  once  present 
this  embargo  to  it  as  a  measure  of  coercion,  to  compel 
it  to  adopt  or  retract  any  principle  of  adopted  policy, 
and  there  was  an  end  of  negotiation.  It  would  have 
been  like  laying  a  drawn  sword  upon  the  table,  and 
declaring,  "  Yield  us  what  we  demand,  or  we  will  push 
it  to  the  hilt  into  your  vitals."  In  such  case,  it  was 
perfectly  apparent  that  there  could  be  received  from  an 
independent  nation  but  one  answer.  "  Take  away  your 
sword ;  withdraw  your  menace :  while  these  continue 
we  listen  to  nothing.  Aware  of  this  inevitable  conse- 
quence, administration  not  only  aver  that  it  is  precau- 
tion, but  even  condescend  to  deny  it  is  any  thing  else, 
by  declaring  that  it  is  this,  and  this  only.  Thus  in 
Great  Britain  precaution  was  the  veil  under  which  a 
sword  was  passed  into  her  side.  But  in  the  United 
States  coercion  was  the  palatable  liquor  with  which 
administration  softened  and  gargled  the  passage,  while 
it  thrust,  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  the  bitter  pill  of 
embargo  down  the  throats  of  the  American  people.  It 
is  this  variation  of  the  avowed  motive  to  suit  the  un- 
questionable diversity  of  the  state  of  things  in  this 
country  and  Great  Britain,  combined  with  the  fact  that 
the  embargo  is  continued  long  after  the  plea  of  precau- 
tion has  ceased  to  be  effectual,  that  produces  a  perfect 
conviction  in  my  mind  that  precaution  was  little  more 
than  the  pretext,  and  that  coercion  was  in  fact  the  prin- 
cipal purpose,  of  the  policy.  Indeed,  how  is  it  possible 
to  conclude  otherwise  when  the  very  mode  of  argu- 
ment adopted  in  each  country  was  the  only  one  which 
could  have  made  coercion  successful,  and  the  very  one 


FOR   HOLDING  AN   EXTRA   SESSION.  141 

which  would  have  been  avoided  if  precaution  had  been 
the  real  and  only  motive  ?  I  cheerfully  submit  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  conclusion  to  the  consideration  of  the 
people. 

I  come  now  to  my  second  proposition,  —  that  it  was 
the  intention  of  administration  to  persevere  in  this 
measure  of  embargo  until  it  should  effect,  if  possible, 
the  proposed  object,  and,  as  I  believe,  at  all  hazard. 
The  evidence  of  this  intention  I  gather  not  only  from  the 
subsequent  perseverance  in  this  system,  in  spite  of  the 
cries  of  distress  heard  in  one  quarter  of  the  Union, 
and  the  dangers  not  to  be  concealed  resulting  from  an 
adherence  to  it,  but .  from  the  very  tenor  of  the  law, 
from  its  original  form  and  feature.  If  this  had  been,  as 
it  was  asserted  by  administration,  originally  a  measure 
of  precaution  only,  there  was  every  reason  why  it 
should  be  limited,  and  none  why  its  duration  should  be 
unlimited.  A  limited  embargo  was  conformable  to  prec- 
edent in  this  country.  It  was  conformable  to  practice 
in  others.  There  was  less  question  of  its  constitution- 
ality ;  and,  certainly,  much  less  reason  to  be  jealous  of 
it  as  a  transfer  of  power  to  the  executive.  The  ques- 
tion of  precaution  having  reference  to  the  interests  of 
the  merchant,  and  of  the  other  classes  of  the  commu- 
nity, was  naturally  one  which  the  members  of  this  House, 
emanating  directly  from  the  people,  were  best  qualified 
to  decide,  and  was  the  last  which  they  ought  or  would, 
in  such  case,  have  submitted  to  the  entire  control  of 
another  branch  of  the  legislature.  But  as,  notwith- 
standing assertions,  it  was  in  fact  a  measure  of  coercion, 
a  very  different  principle  operated  in  its  formation.  It 
was  to  be  used  as  a  weapon  against  Great  Britain.  If 


142  SPEECH   ON  THE   BILL 

drawn  against  her,  it  was  necessary  to  be  put  into  such 
a  situation  as  most  certainly  to  effect  its  purpose.  If 
drawn,  it  was  not  to  be  sheathed,  until  this  had  been 
done,  or  until  it  had  reached  the  marrow  and  the  vitals 
of  the  enemy.  But,  with  such  a  purpose,  a  limited 
embargo  would  have  been  a  nerveless  weapon.  At 
every  term  of  its  limitation,  it  would  have  been  under 
the  control  of  this  House  ;  a  body  deeply  responsible  to 
the  people,  liable  intimately  to  be  affected  by  their  feel- 
ings and  passions.  These  would  have  instantly  operated 
upon  this  House,  which  never  could  have  been  brought 
to  continue  the  measure  one  moment  longer  than  it  was 
for  the  interest  and  consentaneous  to  the  wishes  of  the 
mass  of  their  fellow-citizens.  But  if  the  intention  was 
to  keep  if  possible  these  restrictions  upon  the  people, 
until  they  effected  their  object  at  all  hazards,  then  no 
other  course  could  be  adopted  but  that  of  unlimited 
embargo.  The  whole  commercial  power  given  to  us  by 
the  Constitution  was  thus  transferred  absolutely  to  the 
President  and  twelve  men  in  the  other  branch  of  the 
legislature,1  —  men,  from  their  situation  and  their  tenure 
of  office,  not  so  likely  to  be  affected  by  the  interests  of 
the  people,  or  so  able  to  sympathize  with  them,  as  the 
members  of  this  House.  If  it  were  intended,  then,  to 
keep  this  instrument  of  coercion  aloof  from  the  influ- 
ence of  the  people,  so  that  it  might  be  maintained  long 
after  they  had  ceased  to  approve  of  it,  this  was  the  only 
course  which  could  be  adopted.  This  House  could  not 
be  trusted  with  the  power  of  re-enacting  it.  The 
weapon  would  be  shortened  and  weakened,  if  it  re- 

1  Twelve  senators  held  the  balance  of  power  in  the  Senate,  who  could 
be  depended  upon  to  support  the  administration. 


FOR  HOLDING  AN  EXTRA   SESSION.  143 

mained  in  our  control.  But,  in  the  exclusive  possession 
of  the  President  and  twelve  men,  its  whole  force  might 
be  wielded  with  the  greatest  possible  efficacy.  It  is 
from  this  feature  of  the  embargo  law,  reconcilable  to  no 
other  intention  than  a  predetermination  to  persevere  in  it 
regardless  of  the  people's  sufferings  until  it  had  effected, 
if  possible,  its  object,  as  well  as  from  the  actual  obstinacy 
of  adherence  after  the  most  manifest  symptoms  of  dis- 
content in  the  commercial  States,  that  I  draw  the  con- 
clusion that  such  was  the  original  determination  of 
administration.  And  not  only  so,  but  I  am  perfectly  of 
opinion  that  such  is  still  their  intention,  and  that,  if  the 
people  will  bear  it,  this  embargo  will  be  continued  not 
only  until  next  May,  but  until  next  September ;  yes, 
sir,  to  next  May  twelvemonth.  Having  this  convic- 
tion, a  sense  of  duty  obliges  me  to  declare  it,  and  thus 
to  state  the  reasons  of  it. 

I  come  now  to  my  third  position.,  —  not  only  that 
embargo  was  resorted  to  as  a  means  of  coercion  ;  but 
that,  from  the  first,  it  was  never  intended  by  adminis- 
tration to  do  any  thing  else  effectual  for  the  support  of 
our  maritime  rights.  Sir,  I  am  sick,  sick  to  loathing,  of 
this  eternal  clamor  of  "  war,  war,  war,"  which  has 
been  kept  up  almost  incessantly  on  this  floor,  now  for 
more  than  two  years,  sir.  If  I  can  help  it,  the  old 
women  of  this  country  shall  not  be  frightened  in  this 
way  any  longer.  I  have  been  a  long  time  a  close  ob- 
server of  what  has  been  done  and  said  by  the  majority  of 
this  House ;  and,  for  one,  I  am  satisfied  that  no  insult, 
however  gross,  offered  to  us  by  either  France  or  Great 
Britain,  could  force  this  majority  into  the  declaration  of 
war.  To  use  a  strong  but  common  expression,  it  could 


144  SPEECH   ON   THE   BELL 

not  be  kicked  into  such  a  declaration  by  either  nation. 
Letters  are  read  from  the  British  minister.  Passions 
are  excited  by  his  sarcasms.  Men  get  up  and  recapitu- 
late insults.  They  rise  and  exclaim  "  perfidy,"  "  rob- 
bery," "falsehood,"  "murder"! 

..."  Unpacking  hearts  with  words, 
And  fall  a  cursing,  like  a  very  drab, 
A  scullion." 

Sir,  is  this  the  way  to  maintain  national  honor  or 
dignity  ?  Is  it  the  way  to  respect  abroad  or  at  home  ? 
Is  the  perpetual  recapitulation  of  wrongs  the  ready  path 
to  redress,  or  even  the  means  to  keep  alive  a  just  sense 
of  them  in  our  minds  ?  Are  those  sensibilities  likely  to 
remain  for  a  long  time  very  keen  which  are  kept  con- 
stantly under  the  lash  of  the  tongue  ? 

The  grounds  on  which  I  conclude  that  it  was  the 
intention  of  administration  to  do  nothing  else  effectual, 
in  support  of  our  maritime  rights,  are  these,  that,  if  it 
had  ever  been  contemplated  to  fight  for  them,  less  would 
have  been  said  about  war,  and  more  preparation  made 
for  it.  The  observation  is  common  and  just  as  true  of 
collective  bodies  of  men  as  of  individuals,  that  those 
fight  the  best  who  make  the  least  noise  upon  the  sub- 
ject. The  man  of  determined  character  shows  his 
strength  in  his  muscles,  in  the  attitude  he  assumes,  in 
the  dignified  position  in  which  he  places  himself.  Just 
so  is  it  with  men  determined  to  maintain  the  rights  and 
honor  of  the  nation.  They  consider  the  nature  of  the 
exigency,  the  power  of  the  nation  with  which  they  are 
likely  to  involve  their  country,  what  preparations  are 
necessary  to  its  ultimate  success.  They  do  not  content 


FOR   HOLDING  AN  EXTKA  SESSION.  145 

themselves  with  evaporating  words  of  passion.  They 
look  to  the  end,  and  devise  and  put  in  train  such  means 
as  are  suited  to  a  safe  and  honorable  issue.  This  con- 
duct speaks  more  terribly  than  any  words  to  the  fears  of 
foreign  nations.  And  as  to  our  citizens,  they  find  in  it 
an  assurance,  which  can  be  given  them  by  no  enumera- 
tion of  wrongs,  however  accurate  or  eloquent.  But  it 
is  not  merely  by  what  has  been  said,  but  by  what  has 
been  done,  that  my  mind  is  satisfied  that  administration 
never  seriously  contemplated  a  war  with  any  nation 
under  heaven.  That  all  this  clamor  so  ostentatiously 
raised,  and  all  this  detail  of  the  horrors  of  war,  are 
nothing  else  than  the  machinery  by  which  it  is  intended 
to  keep  this  people  quiet,  through  apprehension  of  a 
worse  state,  under  their  most  oppressive  evil,  the  em- 
bargo. We  have  been  told  from  divine  authority,  "  By 
their  deeds  ye  shall  know  them."  The  rule  is  just  as 
true  in  relation  to  professors  in  politics  as  to  professors 
in  religion.  I  ask,  sir,  what  has  this  majority  done, 
during  the  two  years  past,  in  every  moment  of  which 
the  people  have  been  kept  under  almost  a  daily  antici- 
pation of  war,  towards  an  effectual  maintenance  of  their 
rights,  should  war  in  fact  result  ?  Why,  we  have  built 
seventy  gunboats ;  we  have  in  requisition  one  hundred 
thousand  militia.  Are  either  of  these  intended  to  fight 
Great  Britain  ?  or  competent  to  maintain  our  maritime 
rights  ?  But  we  have  an  army  of  five  thousand  men. 
And  how  have  you  appointed  officers  to  that  army  ? 
Have  you  done  it  in  a  manner  to  create  that  sentiment 
of  unanimity  so  necessary  to  be  inspired,  if  your  inten- 
tion be  to  fight  seriously  a  foreign  enemy  ?  In  the  last 
session,  when  the  proposal  to  raise  that  army  was  before 

10 


146  SPEECH   ON    THE   BILL 

the  House,  no  cry  was  so  universal  as  that  of  "  Union." 
Well,  sir,  and  how  did  those  gentlemen  whose  senti- 
ments usually  coincide  with  mine  act  upon  that  occa- 
sion ?  Did  we  make  a  party  question  of  it  ?  No :  it 
was  supported  very  generally  by  us.  Now,  upon  what 
principle  have  you  conducted  in  your  appointment  of 
officers  to  that  arm}7  ?  as  though  you  wished  to  unite 
every  heart  and  hand  in  the  nation  in  opposition  to  a 
foreign  enemy  ?  No :  but  as  though  you  had  no  other 
project  than  to  reward  political  adherents  or  to  enforce 
the  embargo  laws.  I  mean  not  unjustly  to  charge  any 
member  of  the  administration.  But  I  am  obliged  to 
state  that  I  have  satisfactory  evidence  to  my  mind  that 
it  has  been  established  as  a  principle  by  the  Secretary 
at  War  not  to  appoint  any  man  to  a  command  in  that 
army  who  was  not  an  open  partisan  of  the  existing 
administration.  If  I  am  in  an  error,  appoint  a  committee 
of  inquiry  ;  and  I  will  be  the  happiest,  if  it  be  proved,  to 
acknowledge  it.  [Mn.  LOVE  asked  if  Mr.  Quincy  was 
in  order.  MR.  SPEAKER  conceived  he  was  not.]  MR. 
QUINCY  continued :  I  am  performing  what  I  deem  a  great 
duty  ;  and,  if  the  connection  between  this  topic  and  the 
subject  before  the  House  be  denied,  I  am  prepared  to 
establish  it.  I  am  contending  that  if  the  purpose  for 
which  this  army  was  raised  were  to  meet  a  foreign 
enemy,  this  principle  would  never  have  been  adopted  in 
the  appointment  of  officers.  I  do  not  believe  the  fact  I 
state  will  be  denied.  But  if  it  should  be,  it  is  easily  to  be 
ascertained  by  comparing  the  applications  for  appoint- 
ments to  those  offices  with  the  list  of  those  appointments. 
Now,  sir,  if  the  intention  were  to  unite  the  nation  as 
one  man  against  a  foreign  enemy,  is  not  this  the  last 


FOR   HOLDING   AN  EXTRA   SESSION.  147 

policy  which  any  administration  ought  ever  to  have 
adopted  ?  Of  all  engines,  is  not  a  party  army  the  most 
dreadful  and  detestable  ?  Is  it  not  the  most  likely  to 
awaken  suspicion,  and  to  sow  discontent  rather  than 
concord  ?  This  is  one  reason  on  which  I  rest  my  opinion, 
that  it  was  not  the  intention  to  go  to  war,  or  they  would 
have  adopted  a  principle  more  harmonizing  in  relation 
to  the  organization  of  that  army. 

Again,  sir,  you  talk  of  going  to  war  against  Great 
Britain  with,  I  believe,  only  one  frigate  and  five  sloops- 
of-war  in  commission  !  And  yet  you  have  not  the  reso- 
lution to  meet  the  expense  of  the  paltry  little  navy 
which  is  rotting  in  the  Potomac !  Already  we  have 
heard  it  rung  on  this  floor  that  if  we  fit  out  that  little 
navy  our  treasury  will  be  emptied.  If  you  had  ever  a 
serious  intention  of  going  to  war,  would  you  have  frit- 
tered down  the  resources  of  this  nation  in  the  manner 
we  witness  ?  you  go  to  war,  with  all  the  revenue  to  be 
derived  from  commerce  annihilated,  and  possessing  no 
other  resource  than  loans,  or  direct  or  other  internal 
taxes !  you,  a  party  that  rose  into  power  by  declaim- 
ing against  direct  taxes  and  loans !  Do  you  hope  to 
make  the  people  of  this  country,  much  more  foreign 
nations,  believe  that  such  is  your  intention,  when  you 
have  reduced  your  revenue  to  such  a  condition  ?  [MR. 
G.  W.  CAMPBELL  asked  the  gentleman  if  he  could  tell 
how  much  money  there  was  now  in  the  treasury.]  MR. 
QUINCY  continued :  My  memory  has  not  at  present  at 
command  the  precise  sum,  but  perhaps  twelve  or  thir- 
teen millions  of  dollars,  charged  with  the  expenses  and 
appropriations  for  the  year.  But  what  is  this  ?  Make 
any  material  preparation  for  such  a  war  as  you  must 


148  SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL 

wage,  if  you  engage  with  either  of  the  European  pow- 
ers, and  your  whole  treasury  is  exhausted.  I  am  not 
now  examining  the  present  state  of  our  finances.  But 
I  would  address  myself  to  men  of  sense,  and  ask  them 
to  examine  the  adequacy  of  our  revenues  in  their  future 
product  to  the  inevitable  exigencies  of  Avar.  Sir,  you 
have  no  other  resources,  commerce  being  gone,  than 
loans  or  internal  taxes.  Great  Britain  and  France  know 
this  fact  as  well  as  you.  Nothing  can  be  conducted  in 
such  a  country  as  ours  without  public  notoriety.  The 
general  resources  of  our  country  are  as  well  known  in 
Europe  as  they  are  here.  But  we  are  about  to  raise  an 
army  of  fifty  thousand  volunteers.  For  what  purpose  ? 
I  have  heard  gentlemen  say,  "  We  can  invade  Canada." 
But,  sir,  does  not  all  the  world,  as  well  as  you,  know 
that  Great  Britain  holds,  as  it  were,  a  pledge  for 
Canada  ?  and  one  sufficient  to  induce  you  to  refrain 
from  such  a  project,  when  you  begin  seriously  to  weigh 
all  the  consequences  of  such  invasion.  I  mean  that 
pledge  which  results  from  the  defenceless  state  of  your 
seaport  towns.  For  what  purpose  would  you  attack 
Canada  ?  For  territory  ?  No  :  you  have  enough  of 
that.  Do  you  want  citizen  refugees  ?  No  :  you  would 
be  willing  to  dispense  with  them.  Do  you  want  plun- 
der ?  This  is  the  only  hope  an  invasion  of  Canada  can 
offer  you.  And  is  it  not  very  doubtful  whether  she 
could  not  in  one  month  destroy  more  property  on  your 
seaboard  than  you  can  acquire  by  the  most  successful 
invasion  of  that  province  ?  Sir,  in  this  state  of  things, 
I  cannot  hear  such  perpetual  outcries  about  war  without 
declaring  my  opinion  concerning  them. 

When  I  say,  sir,  that  this  administration  could  not  be 


FOR   HOLDING  AN  EXTKA   SESSION.  149 

induced  into  a  war,  I  mean  by  its  own  self-motion. 
War  may  —  I  will  not  assert  that  it  will  not — come. 
But  such  a  state  administration  do  not  contemplate,  nor 
are  they  prepared  for  it.  On  the  contrary,  I  do  believe 
that  the  very  tendency  of  all  imbecile  measures  is  to 
bring  on  the  very  event  their  advisers  deprecate.  Well 
did  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  (Mr.  Troup)  warn  you 
the  other  day  not  to  get  into  war.  He  told  you  it  was 
the  design  of  the  Federalists  to  lead  you.  into  that  state, 
in  order  that  they  might  get  your  places.  Now,  I  agree 
with  the  gentleman  that,  if  by  your  measures  you  get 
this  country  into  a  war,  that  you  will  lose  your  places. 
But  I  do  not  agree  that  in  such  case  the  Federalists 
would  get  them.  No,  sir.  The  course  of  affairs  in 
popular  revolutions  proceeds,  not  from  bad  to  better, 
but  from  bad  to  worse.  After  Condorcet  and  Brissot 
came  Danton  and  Robespierre.  Well  may  gentlemen 
dread,  on  account  of  their  places,  being  involved  in 
war !  For  let  the  people  once  begin  to  look  on  the  state 
of  the  country  with  that  anxiety  which  the  actual  per- 
ception of  present  danger  never  fails  to  awaken :  let 
them  realize  the  exigencies  which  that  state  involves, 
and  compare  with  them  your  preparations  for  it :  let 
them  see  an  army  in  which,  perhaps,  a  full  half  of  your 
citizens  cannot  confide ;  a  small  navy,  rendered  less  by 
natural  decay,  and  even  the  few  ships  we  have  not  in  a 
state  to  give  battle ;  our  treasury  exhausted,  as  it  will 
soon  be,  and  all  the  ordinary  sources  of  commercial  sup- 
ply dried  away,  —  and  they  will  hurl  you  from  your 
seats  with  as  little  remorse,  with  as  much  indifference, 
as  a  mischievous  boy  would  shy  so  many  blind  and 
trembling  kittens,  six  to  a  litter,  into  a  horse-pond. 


150  SPEECH   ON  THE   BILL 

Yes,  sir,  be  assured  that  war  is  the  termination  of  your 
political  power,  unless  you  have  the  prescience  to  pre- 
pare an  effectual  force,  worthy  of  this  nation,  worthy 
of  either  adversary  you  may  elect  to  engage.  But 
remember  you  must  rely  upon  something  else  than  the 
paltry  surpluses  of  your  treasury,  —  which,  in  fact,  in 
one  year  will  not  exist,  —  upon  something  else  than 
loans  or  direct  taxes. 

This  bill  I  consider  as  a  continuation  of  the  same 
deception  as  to  the  motive  as  that  which  operated  in 
the  passage  of  the  original  embargo  law.  If  we  pass  it, 
I  fear  we  shall  again  be  instrumental  in  deceiving  this 
people.  The  effect  of  this  bill,  whatever  may  be  its 
avowed  design,  is  calculated  to  soothe  the  people,  impa- 
tient under  the  embargo,  until  the  spring  elections  are 
passed,  and  until  the  first  session  of  the  State  legislat- 
ures are  finished.  By  a  new  session  of  the  next  Con- 
gress, in  May,  the  people  are  to  be  led  to  hope  that  next 
May  will  bring  them  relief.  But  let  the  embargo  be 
kept  on  until  May,  and,  as  the  honorable  gentleman 
from  North  Carolina  (Mr.  Macon)  told  you  very  ingen- 
uously, it  will  then  be  found  necessary  to  keep  it  on 
until  September,  and  perhaps  for  another  year.  This  is 
the  keystone  of  the  whole  policy  of  this  bill,  as  I  appre- 
hend. If  it  be  your  real  intention  to  remove  this  em- 
bargo after  May,  why  do  you  not  adopt  a  provision 
similar  to  that  proposed  the  other  day  by  the  gentleman 
from  Connecticut  (Mr.  Sturges),  and  annex  it  to  this 
bill  ?  Why  not  limit  the  continuance  of  the  embargo 
law  until  next  June,  and  thereby  leave  the  new  Con- 
gress free,  relative  to  this  measure,  from  the  power  of 
the  executive  ?  Give  the  people  a  pledge  that  the  em- 


FOR   HOLDING  AN  EXTRA   SESSION.  151 

bargo  shall  be  removed  at  a  limited  time.  At  least  put 
it  into  the  power  of  your  successors,  by  refusing  to  re- 
enact  the  law,  to  control  the  executive's  will.  This 
pledge  the  people  have  a  right  to  claim,  if  it  be  your 
real  purpose  to  abandon  the  measure  after  May.  If, 
however,  this  be  not  your  policy,  avow  your  intentions. 
Tell  the  people  at  once  that  it  is  a  power  of  coercion,  in 
which  you  mean  to  persevere  until  it  has  effected  its 
object.  Show  them  the  reasons  on  which  you  rely  that 
it  will  be  successful.  Perhaps  they  will  consent  to 
endure  it.  But  with  the  present  state  of  things  they 
cannot,  they  ought  not  to,  be  satisfied.  At  least  get 
back,  by  limiting  the  present  law,  your  commercial 
power,  which  you  have  absolutely  surrendered  to  the 
President  and  twelve  men.  Permit  your  successors  to 
be  as  independent  of  the  executive  in  continuing  this 
system  as  you  were  when  you  consented  to  adopt  it. 

The  only  consistent  advocates  of  the  embargo  system 
are  such  gentlemen  as  those  from  North  and  South 
Carolina  (Messrs.  Macon  and  D.  R.  Williams),  and  they 
are  opposed  to  this  bill.  They  tell  you  that  this  is  an 
effectual  weapon  against  Great  Britain,  and  believing 
this,  as  they  do,  they  say  truly  that  a  session  in  May 
will  evidence  timidity  and  defeat  the  effect  of  the  wea- 
pon. You  ought  to  take  one  or  the  other  ground  de- 
cidedly. Either  you  still  confide  in  its  efficacy,  or  you 
begin  to  doubt  of  it.  If  the  former,  show  your  con- 
fidence to  be  rational,  and  leave  the  weapon  to  have  its 
full  operation,  not  unnerved  by  the  hope  of  a  May 
session.  If  the  latter,  either  repeal  it  instantly,  or  give 
the  people  an  assurance  that  it  will  be  done  in  May. 


152  SPEECH   ON  THE  BILL 

The  course  you  are  pursuing  has  no  other  tendency  than 
to  excite  suspicions,  to  agitate  and  embarrass. 

I  ask  gentlemen  to  consider  what  will  be  their  situa- 
tion in  May.  "Will  you  be  in  a  better  condition  to  go  to 
war  then  than  you  are  now  ?  No  :  you  will  be  in  a 
worse.  You  will  be  more  embarrassed ;  you  will  have 
less  revenue ;  you  will  have  more  discontent.  Your 
efficient  force  will  not  be  materially  greater.  Will  you 
have  more  encouragement  then  to  strike  at  the  Canadas 
than  exists  at  present  ?  and  what  other  point  of  attack 
have  you  on  Great  Britain  ?  Will  you  be  a  whit  more 
inclined  in  May  or  June  to  remove  the  embargo  than 
you  are  at  this  moment  ?  No :  it  will  be  stepping  back 
then  just  as  it  is  now.  That  dreadful  thought  will  be, 
I  fear,  sufficient  to  induce  then,  as  now,  adherence  to 
the  measure  six  months  longer.  And,  after  abundance 
of  war  speeches,  Congress  will  rise,  and  leave  that 
measure  bending  down  the  people  until  next  De- 
cember. 

Sir,  these  are  the  general  reasons  which  I  have  to 
urge  against  the  adoption  of  this  bill.  In  what  I  have 
said,  my  only  view  has  been  to  exhibit  to  this  House 
and  nation  the  real  motives  which,  as  I  apprehend, 
caused  the  original  imposition  of  the  embargo,  and  which 
still  operate  in  support  of  this  bill.  I  do  not  believe 
that  it  is  the  intention  of  a  majority  of  this  House  at 
present  to  continue  this  system  after  May.  But  I  do 
believe  that  it  is  the  intention  of  administration.  My 
design  has  been  to  recall  the  recollection  of  gentlemen 
to  the  difference  between  the  arguments  now  urged  for 
its  continuance  and  the  official  reasons  at  first  given  for 


FOB,    HOLDING    AX    EXTRA    SESSION.  153 

its  adoption.  And  I  would  warn  them  that,  if  they 
mean  to  gain  credit  with  the  people  for  the  intention  of 
repealing  the  embargo  in  May,  they  will  not  obtain  it, 
if  they  leave  the  next  Congress  at  the  mercy  of  the 
executive,  by  rising  without  affixing  some  limitation 
to  it. 


SPEECH 

ON    THE    RESOLUTION    OF    CENSURE   ON  FRANCIS  J. 
JACkSON,   THE   BRITISH   MINISTER. 

DEC.  28,  1809. 


SPEECH 

ON  .THE    RESOLUTION    OF    CENSURE    ON    FRANCIS  J. 
JACKSON,   THE  BRITISH  MINISTER. 

DEC.  28,  1809. 


[!N  the  winter  of  1809,  just  before  Mr.  Jefferson  gave  way  to 
Mr.  Madison,  his  favorite  measure  of  the  embargo  was  repealed. 
It  had  answered  none  of  the  expectations  of  its  inventors.  It 
had  paralyzed  American  commerce,  ruined  multitudes  of  mer- 
chants, and  reduced  the  laboring  classes,  who  depended  on  trade 
for  their  support,  to  hopeless  poverty,  while  in  England  its  effects 
had  been  the  very  opposite  of  what  had  been  hoped  from  it. 
After  the  first  disturbance  caused  by  the  withdrawal  of  the 
American  trade  was  over,  the  British  merchants  found  that  the 
monopoly  of  the  trade  of  the  world  which  it  secured  to  them 
much  more  than  overbalanced  any  lo?s  it  occasioned.  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson had  lost  none  of  his  faith  in  his  policy  of  conquering  Eng- 
land by  ruining  the  commerce  of  America,  and  he  lamented  the 
conversion  of  his  own  partisans  to  "  the  fatal  measure  of  repeal." 
But  the  tide  was  too  strong  to  be  stemmed,  and  Mr.  Jefferson 
had  to  see  the  policy  which  he  had  identified  with  his  political 
life  end  with  it.  The  mortification  attending  this  compulsion, 
however,  was  mitigated  by  the  substitution  of  an  Act  of  Non- 
intercourse  with  both  belligerents.  Though  this  measure  was 
far  enough  from  restoring  the  prosperity  the  embargo  had  de- 
stroyed, it  was  an  improvement  upon  what  it  replaced,  as  it 
opened  the  rest  of  the  world  to  American  commerce,  and  re- 
moved the  worst  of  the  restrictions  on  the  coastwise  trade. 


158  SPEECH   ON   THE 

Mr.  Madison,  on  his  accession  to  the  Presidency  in  March, 
1809,  naturally  and  justly  wished  to  signalize  the  beginning  of 
his  administration  by  the  restoration  of  friendly  commercial 
relations  with  Great  Britain.  Accordingly,  he  entered  into 
negotiations  with  this  view  with  Mr.  David  Erskine,  the  eldest 
son  of  the  great  Lord  Erskine,  who  had  been  made  minister  to 
Washington  by  the  administration  of  "  All  the  Talents"  in  1806. 
He  was  a  man  of  about  thirty,  of  small  diplomatic  experience, 
and  by  no  means  a  match  for  such  experienced  hands  as  Mr. 
Madison  and  Mr.  Gallatin,  who  wished  to  cover  their  own  retreat 
from  the  position  taken  up  under  Mr.  Jefferson  as  gracefully  as 
they  could.  In  this  they  were  seconded  by  Mr.  Erskine,  who 
was  connected  by  marriage  with  this  country  and  naturally 
wished  to  be  the  means  of  reconciling  the  two  nations,  to  both 

O  ' 

of  which  he,  in  a  manner,  belonged.  But,  unfortunately,  his 
discretion  was  not  equal  to  his  zeal.  The  administration  of  the 
Duke  of  Portland,  in  which  Mr.  Canning  was  Secretary  for 
Foreign  Affairs,  gave  Mr.  Erskine  very  exact  instructions  as  to 
the  conditions  on  which  it  would  revoke  the  Orders  in  Council, 
which  were  carefully  guarded  so  as  to  save  the  pride  of  the 
English  nation.  The  particulars  will  be  found  in  the  histories 
of  the  times,  and  need  not  be  recapitulated  here.  Mr.  Erskine 
was  authorized  to  show  the  despatch  to  the  American  govern- 
ment, which,  however,  he  omitted  to  do,  fearing,  probably,  that 
this  would  stop  the  negotiation  on  this  side  the  Atlantic,  and 
hoping  that  the  advantages  of  the  Arrangement,  as  it  was  called, 
would  cause  his  departure  from  his  instructions  to  be  overlooked 
on  the  other.  The  announcement  of  the  Erskine  Arrangement, 
made  by  proclamation  on  the  17th  of  April,  diffused  a  general 
joy  throughout  the  country,  as  it  provided  for  the  repeal  of  the 
Orders  in  Council.  But  the  joy  was  soon  damped  by  another 
proclamation  of  the  9th  of  August,  announcing  that  the  English 
administration  had  repudiated  the  Arrangement,  as  made  in 
direct  violation  of  their  express  instructions.  They  were  tech- 
nically justified  in  thus  acting,  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether  it 
was  a  wise  and  statesmanlike  step.  By  the  Arrangement  Eng- 
land would  have  gained  every  thing  she  demanded,  without  re- 


CENSUEE   OP  FKANCIS   J.   JACKSON.  159 

nouncing  the  right  of  search  and  impressment.  The  war  of 
1812  would  not  have  occurred,  and  the  irritation  of  spirit  and 
bitterness  of  feeling  which  it  left  behind  it  —  hardly  yet  ap- 
peased —  would  have  been  avoided. 

Mr.  Erskine  was  recalled  in  disgrace,  and  he  was  replaced  by 
Mr.  Francis  J.  Jackson,  an  experienced  diplomatist,  known  at 
the  time  as  "  Copenhagen  Jackson,"  from  the  part  he  played  as 
minister  to  Denmark  at  the  time  of  the  seizure  of  the  Danish 
fleet  by  Nelson  in  1807.  Mr.  Madison  was  deeply  mortified  by 
the  result  of  his  negotiations  with  Mr.  Erskine,  and  was  ill  dis- 
posed to  give  a  gracious  reception  to  his  successor.  A  quarrel 
was  soon  established  between  them,  and  on  the  ground  that  Mr. 
Jackson  had  intimated  —  which  he  denied  —  that  the  President 
knew  at  the  time  of  the  negotiation  of  the  Arrangement  that  Mr. 
Erskine  had  no  authority  to  make  it,  all  diplomatic  communica- 
tion with  him  was  broken  off,  and  his  recall  demanded  of  his  gov- 
ernment. Of  course  the  Democratic  party  in  Congress  sustained 
Mr.  Madison,  and  it  was  on  a  joint  resolution,  approving  his 
course  and  severely  censuring  that  of  Mr.  Jackson,  that  Mr. 
Quiucy  delivered  the  following  speech,  December  the  28th,  1809. 

It  may  be  proper  to  say  here  that  Mr.  Jackson,  previous  to 
his  return  to  England,  had  an  edition  of  this  speech  printed  to 
take  home  with  him,  as  the  best  defence  of  himself.  A  copy  of 
this  edition  is  in  the  possession  of  the  family.  —  ED.] 

IT  is  not  my  intention,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  offer  any 
common-place  apology  for  the  few  observations  I  shall 
submit  to  the  House  on  the  subject  now  under  consid- 
eration. Such  is  the  character,  and  such  the  conse- 
quences of  these  resolutions,  that  no  man,  who  has  at 
heart  the  honor  and  happiness  of  this  country,  ought 
to  continue  silent,  so  long  as  any  topic  of  illustration 
is  unexhausted,  or  any  important  point  of  view  unoc- 
cupied. 

It  is  proposed,  sir,  that  this  solemn  assembly,  the  rep- 


160  SPEECH   ON  THE 

resentative  of  the  American  people,  the  depositary  of 
their  power,  and,  in  a  constitutional  light,  the  image 
of  their  wisdom,  should  descend  from  the  dignity  of 
its  legislative  duties  to  the  task  of  uttering  against 
an  individual  the  mingled  language  of  indignation  and 
reproach.  Not  satisfied  with  seeing  that  individual 
prohibited  the  exercise  of  his  official  character,  we  are 
invited  to  pursue  him  with  the  joint  terrors  of  legisla- 
tive wrath,  couched  in  terms  selected  to  convey  oppro- 
brium and  infix  a  stigma.  "Indecorum,"  "insolence," 
"affront,"  "more  insolence,"  "more  affront,"  "direct 
premeditated  insult  and  affront,"  "  disguises,  fallacious 
and  false,"  —  these  are  the  stains  we  are  called  upon  to 
cast,  these  the  wounds  we  are  about  to  inflict.  It  is 
scarcely  possible  to  comprise,  within  the  same  compass, 
more  of  the  spirit  of  whatever  is  bitter  in  invective  and 
humiliating  in  aspersion.  This  heaped-up  measure  of 
legislative  contumely  is  prepared  for  whom  ?  For  a 
private,  unassisted,  insulated,  unallied  individual  ?  No, 
sir.  For  the  accredited  minister  of  a  great  and  power- 
ful sovereign,  whose  character  he  in  this  country  rep- 
resents, whose  confidence  he  shares ;  of  a  sovereign 
who  is  not  bound,  and  perhaps  will  not  be  disposed,  to 
uphold  him  in  misconduct,  but  who  is  bound  by  the 
highest  moral  obligations  and  by  the  most  impressive 
political  considerations  to  vindicate  his  wrongs,  whether 
they  affect  his  person  or  reputation ;  and  to  take  care 
that  whatever  treatment  he  shall  receive  shall  not  ex- 
ceed the  measure  of  justice,  and,  above  all,  that  it  does 
not  amount  to  national  indignity. 

Important  as  is  this  view  of  these  resolutions,  it  is 
not  their  most  serious  aspect.     This  bull  of  anathemas, 


CENSURE   OF  FRANCIS  J.  JACKSON.  161 

scarcely  less  than  papal,  is  to  be  fulminated  in  the  name 
of  the  American  people  from  the  high  tower  of  their 
authority,  under  the  pretence  of  asserting  their  rights 
and  vindicating  their  wrongs.  What  will  that  people 
say,  if,  after  the  passions  and  excitements  of  this  day 
shall  have  subsided,  they  shall  find,  and  find  I  fear  they 
will,  that  this  resolution  is  false  ;  in  fact,  that  a  false- 
hood is  the  basis  of  these  aspersions  upon  the  character 
of  a  public  minister  ?  What  will  be  their  just  indigna- 
tion when  they  find  national  embarrassment  multiplied, 
perhaps  their  peace  gone,  their  character  disgraced,  for 
no  better  reason  than  that  you,  their  representatives, 
following  headlong  a  temporary  current,  insist  on  mak- 
ing assertions,  as  they  may  then,  and,  I  believe,  will, 
realize  to  be  not  authorized  by  truth,  under  circum- 
stances and  in  terms  not  warranted  by  wisdom  ? 

Let  us  not  be  deceived.  It  is  no  slight  responsibility 
which  this  House  is  about  to  assume.  This  is  not  one 
of  those  holiday  resolutions  which  frets  and  fumes  its 
hour  upon  the  stage  and  is  forgotten  for  ever.  Very  dif- 
ferent is  its  character  and  consequences.  It  attempts 
to  stamp  dishonor  and  falsehood  on  the  forehead  of  a 
foreign  minister.  If  the  allegation  itself  be  false,  it  will 
turn  to  plague  the  accuser.  In  its  train  will  follow 
severe  retribution,  perhaps  in  war  ;  certainly  in  addi- 
tional embarrassments  ;  and  most  certainly  in,  worst  of 
all,  the  loss  of  that  sentiment  of  self-esteem  which  to 
nations  as  well  as  individuals  is  the  "  pearl  of  great 
price,"  which  power  cannot  purchase  nor  gold  measure. 

In  this  point  of  view,  all  the  other  questions,  which 
have  been  agitated  in  the  course  of  this  debate,  dwin- 
dle into  utter  insignificance.  The  attack  or  defence 

11 


162  SPEECH   ON   THE 

of  administration,  the  detection  of  fault,  or  even  the 
exposure  of  crime,  are  of  no  importance  when  brought 
into  competition  with  the  dut}^  of  rescuing  this  House 
and  nation  from  the  guilt  of  asserting  what  is  false,  and 
making  that  falsehood  the  basis  of  outrage  and  viru- 
lence. I  avoid,  therefore,  all  questions  of  censure  or 
reproach,  on  either  the  British  minister  or  the  American 
Secretary  of  State.  I  confine  myself  to  an  examination 
of  this  resolution,  particularly  of  the  first  branch  of  it. 
This  is  the  foundation  of  all  that  follows.  I  shall  sub- 
mit it  to  a  rigid  analysis,  not  for  the  purpose  of  discov- 
ering how  others  have  pel-formed  their  duties,  but  of 
learning  how  we  shall  perform  ours.  The  obligation  to 
truth  is  the  highest  of  moral  and  social  duties. 

It  is  remarkable,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  of  all  the  gentle- 
men who  have  spoken,  no  one  has  taken  the  precise 
terms  of  the  resolution  as  the  basis  of  his  argument,  and 
followed  that  course  of  investigation  which  those  terms 
naturally  prescribe.  Yet  the  obvious  and  only  safe 
course  in  a  case  of  such  high  responsibility  is  first  to 
form  a  distinct  idea  of  the  assertion  we  are  about  to 
make,  and  then  carefully  to  examine  how  that  assertion 
is  supported,  if  supported  at  all,  by  the  evidence.  With 
this  view  I  recur  to  the  resolution  in  the  form  in  which 
it  is  proposed  for  our  adoption,  and  make  it  the  basis  of 
my  inquiries. 

"  Resolved,  By  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  United  States  of  America,  in  Congress 
assembled,  That  the  expressions  contained  in  the  official 
letter  of  Francis  J.  Jackson,  minister  plenipotentiary  of 
his  Britannic  Majesty  near  the  United  States,  dated  the 
twenty-third  day  of  October,  1809,  and  addressed  to 


CENSURE  OF  FRANCIS  J.  JACKSON.       163 

Mr.  Smith,  Secretary  of  State,  conveying  the  idea  that 
the  executive  government  of  the  United  States  had  a 
knowledge  that  the  arrangement  lately  made  by  Mr. 
Ersldne,  his  predecessor,  in  behalf  of  his  government, 
with  the  government  of  the  United  States  was  entered 
into  without  competent  powers  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Erskine  for  that  purpose,  were  highly  indecorous  and 
insolent." 

This  part  of  the  resolution,  it  will  not  be  denied,  is 
the  foundation  of  the  whole :  for  if  no  such  "  idea  was 
conveyed  "  in  the  letter  of  the  23d  of  October,  then 
there  could  be  no  "  repetition "  of  that  idea  in  the 
letter  of  the  4th  of  November ;  and  if,  in  the  former 
part  of  his  correspondence,  Mr.  Jackson  had  made  no 
such  "  insinuation,"  then  the  assertion  in  this  letter  that 
he  had  made  none  was  perfectly  harmless  and  justifiable. 
This  part,  therefore,  includes  the  pith  of  the  resolution. 
If  we  analyze  it,  we  shall  find  that  it  contains  two  dis- 
tinct assertions.  First,  that  the  expressions  alluded  to 
convey  a  certain  idea ;  second,  that  this  idea,  so  con- 
veyed, is  indecorous  and  insolent.  Here,  again,  we  are 
enabled  to  limit  the  field  of  our  investigation  ;  for  if  no 
such  idea  as  is  asserted  was  conveyed,  then  the  inquiry, 
whether  such  idea  is  indecorous  and  insolent,  is  wholly 
superseded.  The  true  and  only  question,  therefore,  is, 
whether  the  expressions  alluded  to  do  convey  the  as- 
serted idea.  I  place  the  subject  in  this  abstract  form 
before  the  House,  to  the  end  that,  if  possible,  we  may 
exclude  all  those  prejudices  and  partialities  which  so 
naturally  and  imperceptibly  bias  the  judgment.  In  the 
light  in  which  it  now  stands,  it  must  be  apparent  to 
every  one  who  will  reflect  that  the  question  has,  so  far 


164  SPEECH    ON    THE 

as  it  respects  the  principles  on  -which  our  decision  ought 
to  proceed,  no  more  to  do  with  the  relations  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  than  it  has  with 
those  between  the  United  States  and  China,  and  no 
inore  connection  with  Mr.  Francis  J.  Jackson  ahd  Mr. 
Robert  Smith  than  with  the  late  Charles  of  Sweden 
and  the  old  Duke  of  Sudermania.  It  is  a  simple  philo- 
logical disquisition,  which  is  to  be  decided  by  known 
rules  of  construction.  The  only  investigation  is  touch- 
ing the  power  or  capacity  of  certain  terms  to  convey  an 
alleged  idea.  However  ill  suited  a  question  like  this 
may  be  for  the  discussion  of  an  assembly  like  the 
present,  yet,  if  we  would  be  just  to  ourselves  and  the 
people,  we  must  submit  to  an  examination  of  it  in  that 
form  in  which  alone  certainty  can  be  attained.  It  is 
only  by  stripping  the  subject  of  all  adventitious  circum- 
stances that  we  can  arrive  at  that  perfect  view  of  its 
nature  which  can  satisfy  minds  scrupulous  of  truth  and 
anxious  concerning  duty.  It  is  only  by  such  a  rigorous 
scrutiny  that  we  shall  be  able  to  form  that  judgment 
which  will  stand  the  test  of  time,  and  do  honor  to  us 
and  our  country  when  the  passions  of  the  day  are 
passed  away  and  forgotten. 

The  natural  course  of  inquiry  now  is  into  the  idea 
which  is  asserted  to  be  conveyed,  and  the  expressions 
which  are  said  to  convey  it.  Concerning  the  first  there 
is  no  difficulty.  The  idea  asserted  to  be  conveyed  is, 
"  that  the  arrangement  made  between  Mr.  Erskine  and 
Mr.  Smith  was  entered  into  by  the  American  govern- 
ment, with  a  knowledge  that  the  powers  of  Mr.  Erskine 
were  incompetent  for  that  purpose."  It  would  save  a 
world  of  trouble  if  the  expressions  in  which  this  idea  is 


CENSURE  OF  FRANCIS  J.  JACKSON.       165 

said  to  be  conveyed  were  equally  easy  of  ascertainment. 
But  on  this  point  those  gentlemen  who  maintain  this 
insult  are  far  from  being  agreed  :  some  being  of  opinion 
that  it  is  to  be  found  in  one  place  ;  some  in  another ; 
and  others,  again,  assert  that  it  is  to  be  found  in  the 
whole  correspondence  taken  together.  Never  was  an 
argument  of  this  nature  before  so  strangely  conducted. 
Gentlemen  seem  wholly  to  lay  out  of  sight  that  this 
resolution  pledges  this  House  to  the  assertion  of  a  par- 
ticular fact,  and  expresses  no  general  sentiment  concern- 
ing the  conduct  of  Mr.  Jackson  or  the  conduct  of  his 
government.  Yet,  as  if  the  whole  subject  of  the  Brit- 
ish relations  was  under  discussion,  they  have  deemed 
themselves  at  liberty  to  course  through  these  documents, 
collect  every  thing  which  seems  to  them  indecorous, 
insolent,  or  unsuitable  in  Mr.  Jackson's  language,  and 
add  to  the  heap  thus  made  the  whole  list  of  injuries 
received  from  Great  Britain,  impressments,  affair  of 
the  Chesapeake,  murder  of  Pierce  ;  and  all  this  for  what 
purpose  ?  Why,  truly,  to  justify  this  House  in  making 
a  solemn  asseveration  of  a  particular  fact !  as  if  any 
injury  in  the  world  could  be  even  an  apology  for  the 
deliberate  utterance  of  a  falsehood.  Let  the  conduct  of 
Mr.  Jackson  or  of  Great  Britain  be  as  atrocious  as  it 
will,  if  the  fact  which  we  assert  do  not  exist,  we  and 
this  nation  are  disgraced.  It  is  evident,  then,  that  irk- 
some as  such  a  task  is,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should 
submit  to  a  precise  inquiry  into  the  truth  of  that  to 
which  we  are  about  to  pledge  our  reputation  and  that 
of  this  people. 

In  our  investigation  let  us  follow  the  natural  course 
pointed  out  in  the  resolution.     This  alleges  that   the 


166  SPEECH    ON    THE 

obnoxious  expressions  are  contained  in  the  letter  of 
the  23d  of  October,  and  to  this  limits  our  assertion. 
In  this  letter,  therefore,  either  directly  or  by  way  of 
reference  to  some  other,  this  obnoxious  idea  or  insinua- 
tion must  be  found.  For  if  it  be  not  in  this,  even  if  it 
should  be  contained  in  other  parts  of  the  correspond- 
ence, which  is  not,  however,  pretended,  still  our  asser- 
tion would  be  false.  Concerning  this  letter  of  the 
23d  of  October,  I  confidently  assert,  without  fear  of 
contradiction,  that  the  obnoxious  idea,  if  contained 
in  that  letter,  is  conveyed  in  the  paragraph  I  am  now 
about  to  quote.  No  man  has  pretended  to  cite  any 
part  of  this  letter  as  evidence  of  the  asserted  insult 
except  the  ensuing  ;  and  although  there  is  not  a  perfect 
coincidence  in  opinion  as  to  the  particular  part  in  which 
it  resides,  yet  all  agree  that  it  lurks  somewhere  in  this 
paragraph,  if  it  have  any  dwelling-place  in  this  letter. 

"  I  have  therefore  no  hesitation  in  informing  you  that 
his  Majesty  was  pleased  to  disavow  the  agreement  con- 
cluded between  you  and  Mr.  Erskine,  because  it  was 
concluded  in  violation  of  that  gentleman's  instructions, 
and  altogether  without  authority  to  subscribe  to  the 
terms  of  it.  These  instructions  I  now  understand  by 
your  letter,  as  well  as  from  the  obvious  deduction  which 
I  took  the  liberty  of  making  in  mine  of  the  llth  in- 
stant, were  at  the  time,  in  substance,  made  known  to 
you ;  no  stronger  illustration,  therefore,  can  be  given  of 
the  deviation  from  them  which  occurred,  than  by  a 
reference  to  the  terms  of  your  agreement.  Nothing  can 
be  more  notorious  than  the  frequency  with  which,  in 
the  course  of  complicated  negotiations,  ministers  are 
furnished  with  a  gradation  of  conditions  on  which  they 


CENSUBE  OF  FRANCIS  J.  JACKSON.       167 

may  be  successively  authorized  to  conclude.  So  com- 
mon is  the  case  which  you  put  hypothetically,  that 
in  acceding  to  the  justice  of  your  statement  I  feel  myself 
compelled  to  make  only  one  observation  upon  it,  which 
is,  that  it  does  not  strike  me  as  bearing  upon  the  con- 
sideration of  the  unauthorized  agreement  concluded 
here,  inasmuch  as,  in  point  of  fact,  Mr.  Erskine  had  no 
such  graduated  instructions.  You  are  already  acquainted 
with  that  which  was  given,  and  I  have  had  the  honor  of 
informing  you  that  it  was  the  only  one  by  which  the 
conditions  on  which  he  was  to  conclude  were  prescribed. 
So  far  from  the  terms  which  he  was  actually  induced  to 
accept  having  been  contemplated  in  that  instruction,  he 
himself  states  that  they  were  substituted  by  you  in  lieu 
of  those  originally  proposed." 

I  have  quoted  the  whole  paragraph,  because  in  that 
obscure  and  general  mode  of  argument  in  which  gentle- 
men have  indulged,  it  has  been  read  as  that  entire 
portion  in  which  the  insult  is  conveyed.  It  is  difficult 
to  conceive  how  some  parts  of  this  paragraph  can  be 
thought  to  convey  any  insult.  However,  in  prosecution 
of  my  plan,  I  shall  first  exclude  all  those  parts  in  which 
the  obnoxious  idea  cannot  be  pretended  to  exist,  and 
then  limit  my  investigation  to  that  f>art  in  which  it  must 
exist,  if  in  the  letter  of  the  23d  of  October  it  be  con- 
veyed at  all. 

With  respect  to  the  first  sentence  in  this  paragraph,  I 
say  confidently  that  the  insult  is  not  contained  there. 
It  is  simply  a  declaration  of  the  causes  of  the  disavowal. 
So  far  is  it  from  including  the  obnoxious  idea  of  a  knowl- 
edge in  our  government  of  the  incompetency  of  Erskine's 
powers,  that  in  a  manner  it  excludes  that  idea,  by  enu- 


168  SPEECH  ON   THE 

merating  violation  of  instructions  and  want  of  authority 
as  the  only  causes  of  the  disavowal.  In  the  first  sen- 
tence,  then,  the  insult  is  not.  I  pass  by  the  second,  as 
it  will  be  the  subject  of  a  distinct  examination  hereafter. 
The  third  and  fourth  sentences  it  will  not  even  be  pre- 
tended convey  this  obnoxious  idea.  They  simply  ac- 
knowledge the  frequency  of  graduated  instructions,  and 
assert  the  fact  that  Mr.  Erskine's  were  not  of  that 
character.  In  this  there  is  no  insult.  As  little  can  it 
be  pretended  to  exist  in  the  fifth  sentence.  It  merely 
asserts  that  Mr.  Smith  "  already  "  —  that  is,  at  or  before 
the  time  Mr.  Jackson  was  then  writing  —  is  acquainted 
with  the  instructions  (a  fact  not  denied,  and  not  sug- 
gested to  be  an  insult),  and  that  the  fact  of  these 
instructions  being  the  only  ones,  Mr.  Smith  knows  from 
the  information  of  Mr.  Jackson ;  an  assertion  which,  so 
far  from  intimating  the  obnoxious  idea  of  a  knowledge 
in  Mr.  Smith  at  the  time  of  the  arrangement  with  Mr. 
Erskine,  that  it  conveys  a  contrary  idea,  by  declaring 
that  he  was  indebted  for  it  to  his,  Mr.  Jackson's,  infor- 
mation. Here,  then,  the  insult  is  not.  With  respect  to 
the  last  sentence  in  this  paragraph,  the  only  assertions 
it  contains  are  the  fact  that  the  terms  accepted  were  not 
contained  in  the  instructions,  and  the  evidence  of  this 
fact,  derived  from  the  statement  of  Mr.  Erskine,  that 
those  acceded  to  were  substituted  by  Mr.  Smith  in  lieu 
of  those  originally  proposed.  In  all  this,  the  knowledge 
of  Mr.  Smith  of  the  incompetency  of  Mr.  Erskine's 
powers  is  not  so  much  as  intimated.  Indeed,  no  one  has 
pretended  directly  to  assert  that  they  have  found  it  in 
the  parts  of  this  paragraph,  from  which  I  have  thus 
excluded  the  obnoxious  idea.  Yet  as  the  whole  has 


CENSUEE  OF  FRANCIS  J.  JACKSON.      169 

been  cited  and  made  the  basis  of  desultory  declamation, 
I  thought  it  not  time  lost  to  clear  out  of  the  way  all 
irrelevant  matter,  and  to  leave  for  distinct  examination 
the  only  sentence  of  this  paragraph  in  which  the  insult 
lurks,  if  it  have  any  existence  in  this  letter.     This  point 
we  have  now  attained.     And  as  little  inclined  as  gen- 
tlemen may  be  to  precise  investigation,  they  must  yield 
to  it.     I  say,  therefore,  confidently,  and  without  fear  of 
contradiction,  that   if  the    assertion   contained   in  this 
resolution  be  capable   of  justification,  by  any  part   of 
the  letter  of  the  23d  of  October,  it  is  by  the  follow- 
ing,  the    only   remaining  sentence    of  the   cited  para- 
graph   which    I    have    not    yet    examined  :    "  These 
instructions  I  now  understand  by  your  letter,  as  well 
as  from  the  obvious  deduction  which  I  took  the  liberty 
of  making  in  mine  of  the    llth  instant,  were,  at   the 
time,  in  substance  made  known  to  you  ;  no  stronger 
illustration,  therefore,  can   be   given    of  the   deviation 
from  them  which  occurred,  than  by  a  reference  to  the 
terms   of  your   agreement."     The   latter  part   of  this 
sentence  being  merely  a  conclusion  from  the  preceding 
part,  and  having  no  relation  to  the  knowledge  of  our 
government  at  the  time  of  the  arrangement,  will  be  laid 
out  of  consideration,  as  being,  obviously,  wholly  with- 
out the  possibility  of  any  agency  in  conveying  the  ob- 
noxious idea.     There  remains  only  the  preceding  part 
of  this  sentence  for  the  residence  of  the  insult.     Here,  if 
anywhere,  it  must  exist.     Accordingly,  this  is  usually 
shown  as  the  spot  where   the  ghost  of  insinuation  first 
appeared  before  the  eyes  of  our  astonished  administra- 
tion.    Here  we  shall  again  find  it;  unless,  indeed,  it 
were  in  fact  a  mere  delusion  of  the  fancy,  formed  of 


170  SPEECH    ON    THE 

"  such  stuff  as  dreams  are  made  of."  Let  us  examine 
by  way  of  analysis. 

The  sentence  to  which  the  advocates  of  this  insult- 
ing insinuation  are  now  reduced  contains,  first,  a  fact 
asserted  ;  second,  the  sources  from  which  a  knowledge 
of  that  fact  is  derived.  The  fact  asserted  is,  that  "  the 
instructions  were,  at  the  time,  in  substance  made  known 
to  you."  The  sources  stated  are,  Mr.  Smith's  letter 
of  the  19th  of  October,  and  the  obvious  deductions  in 
his  (Mr.  Jackson's)  letter  of  the  llth."  The  ques- 
tion is,  whether,  in  either  of  these  branches,  or  in  both 
taken  together,  directly  or  in  the  way  of  reference, 
the  following  idea  is  by  any  fair  construction  conveyed, 
viz.,  "  That  at  the  time  of  the  arrangement  with  Mr. 
Erskine  the  government  of  the  United  States  had  a 
knowledge  of  the  incompetency  of  Erskine's  powers." 

Previous  to  proceeding  further,  I  wish  to  make  a 
single  observation,  by  way  of  illustrating  the  nature 
and  strength  of  the  argument  I  shall  offer.  To  induce 
this  House  to  adopt  a  resolution  so  pregnant  with  conse- 
quences to  the  hopes  and  character  of  this  people,  it 
cannot  be  sufficient  merely  to  show  that  the  insinuation 
on  which  their  assertion  is  predicated  may  be  conveyed, 
it  will  require  certainty  that  not  only  this  idea  is,  but 
also  that  no  other  possibly  can  be.  Surely  if  it  be 
possible  to  show,  or  even  make  it  probable,  that 
another  and  an  innocent  idea  may  be  conveyed,  this 
House  will  never  consent  to  make  an  assertion  of  such 
high  responsibility,  on  such  dubious  ground.  For  the 
purpose  of  defeating  this  resolution,  it  would  therefore 
be  amply  sufficient  for  me  to  show  that  an  idea  other 
than  the  obnoxious  one  may  be  conveyed.  But  I  do 


CENSUBE   OF  FKANCIS  J.   JACKSON.  171 

not  limit  myself  to  this  task :  I  undertake  to  show  not 
only  that  another  idea  than  the  obnoxious  one  may  be 
conveyed,  but  that  another  is,  and  that  the  idea  asserted 
in  this  resolution  is  not,  and  by  any  fair  construction  of 
language  cannot  possibly  be,  conveyed  by  these  expres- 
sions. 

The  question  recurs  in  the  fact  asserted  in  this  sen- 
tence, is  the  knowledge  of  our  government  of  the  incom- 
petence of  Mr.  Erskine's  powers  intimated  ?  So  far  from 
conveying  such  an  idea  that  it  intimates  nothing  con- 
cerning the  knowledge  of  our  government  in  relation 
to  the  general  state  of  Mr.  Erskine's  powers,  the 
simple  assertion  is,  "  You  knew  the  substance  of  those 
instructions,"  because  you  admit  you  knew  the  condi- 
tions, and  I  tell  you  these  were  the  substance.  So  far 
from  this  assertion  conveying  the  idea  of  a  knowledge 
in  our  government  of  the  general  state  of  Mr.  Erskine's 
powers,  that  if  Mr.  Jackson  had  here  expressly  asserted 
that  these  instructions  were  shown  in  extenso  to  our 
government,  although  this,  after  the  denial  of  Mr.  Smith, 
might  have  been  an  insult,  yet  it  would  not  have  con- 
veyed the  obnoxious  idea,  nor  authorized  this  resolution, 
unless  he  had  also  asserted,  or  it  was  a  fact,  that  those 
instructions  included  an  exclusion  of  all  other  powers  ; 
because  the  assertion  of  the  knowledge  of  a  particular 
power,  which  does  not  include  such  an  exclusion,  can 
never  convey  the  idea  of  the  general  incompetency  of 
the  agent.  In  order  to  make  my  argument  distinct,  I 
will  state  it  more  generally  :  If  a  particular  power  con- 
tain an  exclusion  of  all  other  powers,  except  those 
expressed  in  it,  then  an  assertion  that  this  particular 
power  was  known  may  convey  the  idea  of  a  knowledge 


172  SPEECH   ON    THE 

» 

of  the  general  incompetency  of  the  agent.  But  if  such 
particular  power  do  not,  in  fact,  contain  an  exclusion  of 
all  other  powers,  then  to  assert  that  this  particular  power 
was  known  can  never  convey  the  idea  of  a  knowledge 
of  such  general  in  competency.  In  this  case,  it  is  not 
even  suggested  that  the  instructions  in  question  did 
include  any  such  exclusion  of  other  powers.  An  as- 
sertion, therefore,  that  they  were  known  can  never  con- 
vey the  idea  of  a  general  knowledge  of  the  incompetency 
of  the  agent,  unless  a  part  can  be  made  to  include  the 
whole,  and  an  assertion  that  one  thing  is  known  can  be 
made  to  convey  the  idea  that  every  thing  is  known.  If, 
then,  an  assertion  of  a  knowledge  in  our  government  of 
the  instructions  in  extenso  would  not  have  conveyed  the 
idea  of  a  general  knowledge  of  Mr.  Erskine's  powers, 
by  much  stronger  reason  a  simple  assertion  that  only 
the  substance  of  those  instructions  was  known  cannot 
convey  that  idea.  I  say,  therefore,  that,  so  far  as  re- 
spects the  fact  here  asserted,  not  only  another  idea  than 
the  obnoxious  one  may  be  conveyed,  but  that  another 
idea  is,  and  that  the  idea  this  resolution  asserts  cannot 
by  any  possibility  be  conveyed.  So  that  if  this  idea  is 
to  be  found  anywhere  in  this  letter  of  the  23d  of  Octo- 
ber, it  must  be  in  consequence  of  the  reference  to  the 
two  letters  of  the  19th  and  the  llth,  which  Mr.  Jackson 
says  were  the  sources  by  means  of  which  he  understood 
the  fact  he  asserts.  Into  these  letters,  therefore,  we 
must  look  after  the  insulting  idea ;  for  we  have  now 
shown  that  it  is  not  in  the  letter  of  the  23d  of  October, 
unless  it  be  by  virtue  of  this  reference. 

With  respect  to  Mr.  Smith's  letter  of  the  19th,  the 
assertion,  "  I  understand  by  your  letter  (that  of  the 


CENSURE  OP  FRANCIS  J.  JACKSON.      173 

19th)  that  the  substance  of  these  instructions  was 
known  to  you,"  has  been  represented  as  insolent.  So 
far  from  being  insolent,  it  is  not  so  much  as  a  contra- 
diction. Mr.  Smith  says,  "  I  knew  the  three  condi- 
tions." "  That  is  what  I  say,"  replies  Mr.  Jackson  ; 
"  you  knew  the  substance,  because  I  tell  you  that  those 
three  conditions  were  the  substance."  Here  is  no  con- 
tradiction. The  only  fact  open  to  dispute  is,  whether 
the  three  conditions  were  the  substance.  Mr.  Jackson, 
indeed,  asserts,  but  Mr.  Smith  does  not  deny,  this  fact. 
He  only  admits  that  he  knew  the  three  conditions  ; 
neither  admitting  nor  controverting  the  fact  asserted  by 
Mr.  Jackson  that  they  were  the  substance.  But,  taking 
it  for  granted  that  this  assertion  was  insolent,  general 
insolence  is  no  justification  to  this  House  for  asserting 
a  particular  fact.  It  is  enough,  however,  for  the  pres- 
ent argument  to  observe  that  the  obnoxious  idea,  which 
is  the  basis  of  the  resolution,  cannot  be  conveyed  by 
means  of  this  reference  to  the  letter  of  the  19th,  not 
only  from  the  argument  just  now  adduced,  showing 
that  even  the  assertion  that  these  instructions  were 
known  in  extenso,  would  not  have  conveyed  that  idea, 
but  also  from  this  further  consideration,  that  no  gentle- 
man has  pretended  that  it  was  in  consequence  of  this 
reference  to  that  letter  that  this  obnoxious  idea  was 
conveyed. 

The  advocates  of  this  insult  and  of  this  resolution 
are,  therefore,  driven  back  to  the  letter  of  the  llth.  If 
it  be  not  found  here,  it  can  be  found  nowhere,  at  least 
to  justify  this  resolution.  With  respect  to  this  letter 
of  the  llth,  we  are  subjected  to  the  same  difficulty  to 
which  we  were  reduced  in  relation  to  the  letter  of  the 


174  SPEECH   ON    THE 

23d.  Many  passages  have  been  read  for  the  purpose  of 
general  comment,  to  which,  in  pursuance  of  my  plan,  I 
shall  make  no  allusion.  I  confine  myself  only  to  those 
passages  which  have  been  cited  to  prove  the  particular 
idea  asserted  in  this  resolution.  None  of  these  I  shall 
omit.  With  any  thing  else  under  this  resolution  we 
have  nothing  to  do,  unless  we  are  willing,  by  suffering 
extraneous  influence  to  operate,  to  mislead  our  own 
judgments,  and  to  deceive  our  fellow-citizens. 

The  following  paragraph,  in  the  letter  of  the  llth  of 
October,  is  the  first,  and  the  one  principally  relied  upon, 
to  prove  the  existence  of  that  obnoxious  insinuation 
which  is  the  basis  of  the  resolution.  "  I  observe  that 
in  the  records  of  this  mission  there  is  no  trace  of  com- 
plaint on  the  part  of  the  United  States  of  his  Majesty's 
having  disavowed  the  act  of  his  minister.  You  have 
not,  in  the  conferences  we  have  hitherto  held,  distinctly 
announced  any  such  complaint ;  and  I  have  seen  with 
pleasure,  in  this  forbearance  on  your  part,  an  instance 
of  that  candor  which  I  doubt  not  will  prevail  in  all  our 
communications,  inasmuch  as  you  could  not  but  have 
thought  it  unreasonable  to  complain  of  the  disavowal 
of  an  act  done  under  such  circumstances  as  could  only 
lead  to  the  consequences  that  have  actually  followed." 
Here  is  the  insult,  the  advocates  of  this  resolution  as- 
sert, in  a  sort  of  embryo  state.  Let  us  look  at  it  through 
the  spectacles  of  the  friends  of  the  administration,  with- 
out any  disposition  to  distort  or  to  change  any  of  its 
proportions.  The  features  of  this  insult,  say  these  gen- 
tlemen, consist  in  this  :  first,  in  referring  to  the  thoughts 
of  Mr.  Smith  ;  second,  in  intimating  that  his  thoughts 
must  have  been  such  as  to  satisfy  him  that  it  was 


CENSUEE   OF  FEANCIS  J.    JACKSON.  175 

unreasonable  to  complain  of  an  act  done  under  such 
circumstances.  In  this  the  insult  consists.  In  other 
words,  in  this  the  obnoxious  idea  is  conveyed  ;  be- 
cause it  implies  a  knowledge  in  Mr.  Smith  that  it  was 
done  under  circumstances  which  could  only  lead  to  a 
disavowal.  Now,  say  they,  the  circumstance  which 
could  only  lead  to  a  disavowal  is  a  knowledge  in  Mr. 
Smith,  at  the  time  of  the  arrangement,  of  the  incompe- 
tency  of  Mr.  Erskine's  powers.  Thus,  say  they,  the 
knowledge  of  that  incompetency  is  implied,  and  the 
idea  asserted  in  this  resolution  conveyed.  This  is  a  fair 
and  full  statement  of  their  argument.  I  reply,  I  do 
agree  that  these  expressions  do  imply  a  knowledge 
in  Mr.  Smith  that  it  was  done  under  circumstances 
which  could  only  lead  to  a  disavowal.  But  it  does  not 
imply  that  this  knowledge  existed  in  Mr.  Smith  at  the 
time  of  the  arrangement  made  ;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
does  imply,  and  can  imply  only,  a  knowledge  in  Mr. 
Smith  at  the  time  the  disavowal  was  known.  The  former 
is  the  only  implication  which  can  possibly  be  obnoxious ; 
the  latter  is  most  innocent,  because,  at  the  time  of  the 
disavowal  known,  the  circumstances  which  led  to  that 
disavowal  were  communicated.  An  intimation  of  this 
knowledge  in  Mr.  Smith  could  not  but  be,  therefore, 
perfectly  inoffensive.  That  these  expressions  cannot 
imply  a  knowledge  in  Mr.  Smith  at  the  time  of  the 
arrangement  made,  and  can  only  imply  a  knowledge  in 
him  at  the  time  of  disavowal  known,  I  argue  from 
this  fact,  that  the  only  time  intimated  is  the  time  when 
Mr.  Smith  "  could  not  but  have  thought  it  unreasonable 
to  complain  of  the  disavowal."  Now,  Mr.  Smith  could 
not  have  begun  to  think  of  complaining  of  the  disavowal 


176  SPEECH   ON  THE 

until  the  disavowal  was  known  to  him,  and  with  that 
knowledge   came  also   the   knowledge   of  the   circum- 
stances which    led   to  it.     Nothing,  therefore,  can  be 
more  plain  than  that  the  time  here  implied  is  the  .time 
after  disavowal  known,  and  not  the  time  of  the  arrange- 
ment made.     The  fair  construction  of  these  expressions 
is,  "  You  must  have  thought  it.  Mr.  Smith,  unreasonable 
to  complain  after  you  knew  of  the  disavowal ;  for  that 
knowledge  apprised  you  that  the  act  was  done  under 
circumstances  which  could  only  lead  to  a  disavowal." 
I  say,  therefore,  that  the  idea  asserted  in  this  resolution 
(a  knowledge  in  Mr.  Smith  at  the  time  of  the  arrange- 
ment) is  not  conveyed  in  this  paragraph  :  another  idea 
is  conveyed  ;  viz.,  a  knowledge  at  the  time  of  disavowal 
known.     I  say,  further,  that  the  idea  of  knowledge  of 
the  incompetency  of  Mr.  Erskine's  powers  in  Mr.  Smith 
at  the  time  of  the  arrangement  cannot  by  any  possibility 
be  conveyed,  unless  the  assertion  of  a  knowledge,  exist- 
ing at  a  time  subsequent,  can  be  made  to  express  such 
knowledge,  limited  to  a  time    antecedent.     The  only 
knowledge  implied  is  subsequent  to  disavowal,  and  so 
by  no  possibility  can  be  wrested  to  express  the  state  of 
knowledge  at  a  time  antecedent  to  disavowal. 

The  ensuing  paragraph  I  cite  at  large,  because  it  has 
been  quoted  by  some  of  the  advocates  of  this  resolution 
as  containing  the  obnoxious  idea,  although  it  requires 
only  a  single  perusal  to  satisfy  any  mind  that  it  is  im- 
possible that  the  far  greatest  part  of  it  can  contain  any 
thing  offensive.  It  is  the  only  paragraph  remaining 
unexamined  which  has  been  thus  quoted,  and  will  re- 
quire a  very  short  elucidation.  "  It  was  not  known 
when  I  left  England  whether  Mr.  Erskine  had,  accord- 


CENSUKE   OF   FKANCIS   J.   JACKSON.  177 

ing  to  the  liberty  allowed  him,  communicated  to  yon  in 
extenso  his  original  instructions.  It  now  appears  that  he 
did  not.  But,  in  reverting  to  this  official  correspond- 
ence, and  particularly  to  a  dispatch  addressed,  on  the 
20th  of  April,  to  his  Majesty's  Secretary  of  State  for 
Foreign  Affairs,  I  find  that  he  there  states  that  he  had 
submitted  to  your  consideration  the  three  conditions 
specified  in  those  instructions,  as  the  groundwork  of  an 
arrangement,  which,  according  to  information  received 
from  this  country,  it  was  thought  in  England  might  be 
made  with  a  prospect  of  great  mutual  advantage.  Mr. 
Erskine  then  reports,  verbatim  et  seriatim,  your  observa- 
tions upon  each  of  the  three  conditions,  and  the  reasons 
which  induced  you  to  think  that  others  might  be  substi- 
tuted in  lieu  of  them.  It  may  have  been  concluded 
between  you  that  these  latter  were  an  equivalent  for 
the  original  conditions ;  but  the  very  act  of  substitution 
evidently  shows  that  those  original  conditions  were  in 
fact  very  explicitly  communicated  to  you,  and  by  you, 
of  course,  laid  before  the  President  for  his  consideration. 
I  need  hardly  add  that  the  difference  between  these 
conditions  and  those  contained  in  the  arrangement  of 
the  18th  and  19th  of  April  is  sufficiently  obvious  to 
require  no  elucidation  ;  nor  need  I  draw  the  conclusion, 
which  I  consider  as  admitted,  by  all  absence  of  com- 
plaint on  the  part  of  the  American  government,  viz., 
that  under  such  circumstances  his  Majesty  had  an  un- 
doubted and  incontrovertible  right  to  disavow  the  act 
of  his  minister." 

On  this  passage  it  is  only  necessary  to  remark  that, 
so  far  as  it  respects  the  assertion  that  Mr.  Erskine  had 
submitted  to  Mr.  Smith  the  three  conditions  specified  in 

12 


178  SPEECH   ON   THE 

those  instructions,  the  fact  is  admitted  by  Mr.  Smith  , 
that  so  far  as  it  respects  Mr.  Jackson's  assertion  that 
Mr.  Erskine  reports,  in  his  official  correspondence,  the 
reasons  which  induced  Mr.  Smith  to  think  that  others 
might  be  substituted  in  lieu  of  them,  that  it  is  not 
denied  by  Mr.  Smith.  For  in  his  letter  of  the  19th, 
Mr.  Smith,  referring  to  this  subject,  expresses  himself 
very  cautiously,  that  Mr.  Erskine  "  on  finding  his  first 
proposals  unsuccessful,  the  more  reasonable  terms  com- 
prised in  the  arrangement  respecting  the  orders  in  coun- 
cil were  adopted,"  without  denying,  as  he  would  if  it 
had  been  false,  and  he  had  thought  it  material,  that  he 
had  offered  "  reasons  to  Mr.  Erskine,  which  induced  him 
[Mr.  Smith]  to  think  that  others  might  be  substituted  in 
lieu  of  them."  But  whether  true  or  false,  the  asser- 
tion that  Mr.  Smith  had  offered  such  reasons  to  Mr. 
Erskine  can  never,  by  any  fair  construction,  be  made 
to  convey  the  idea  that  Mr.  Smith  knew  that  Mr. 
Erskine's  powers  were  limited  to  the  three  conditions, 
or,  in  other  words,  that  Erskine's  powers  were  incom- 
petent. Upon  the  next  sentence  the  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Milnor)  lays  great  stress,  asserting 
that  "  it  conveys  the  idea  that  Mr.  Smith  had  over- 
reached Mr.  Erskine."  Concerning  this  sentence,  my 
first  assertion  is,  that  whatever  else  it  may  convey,  it 
can  never  convey  the  idea  asserted  in  this  resolution. 
For,  certainly,  to  say  of  two  classes  of  conditions  under 
consideration,  that  Mr.  Smith  and  Mr.  Erskine  con- 
cluded together  that  the  one  was  equivalent  to  the 
other,  can  only  imply  a  comparison  and  a  knowledge  of 
those  classes,  and  by  no  possibility  can  imply  the  state 
of  Mr.  Smith's  knowledge  in  relation  to  Mr.  Erskine's 


CENSURE  OF  FRANCIS  J.  JACKSON.       179 

right  to  conclude  concerning  either  of  them.  So  that 
for  all  the  purposes  of  supporting  this  resolution,  it  is 
utterly  useless,  whatever  other  demerit  it  may  have. 
The  strenuousness  of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
(Mr.  Milnor)  on  this  point  shows  the  crude  ideas  which 
even  he,  usually  so  acute  and  correct,  entertains  con- 
cerning his  duties  on  this  occasion.  His  great  aim  was 
to  show  that  Mr.  Jackson  here  intimates  the  idea  that 
Mr.  Smith  had  overreached  Mr,  Erskine.  Well,  sup- 
pose he  had  said  this  directly,  in  so  many  words, 
would  this  justify  the  House  in  voting  that  Mr.  Jack- 
son had  conveyed  the  idea  asserted  in  this  resolution  ? 
It  is  the  universal  fallacy,  prove  any  thing  rude  or  in- 
solent, and  it  is  a  sufficient  justification  to  this  House 
for  asserting  a  particular,  independent  fact.  Is  it  pos- 
sible for  any  mode  of  conduct  to  be  more  unjustifiable 
or  thoughtless ;  more  calculated  to  bring  shame  upon 
ourselves  and  disgrace  upon  the  nation  ? 

The  next  and  last  sentence  in  this  paragraph  is 
merely  a  declaration  of  the  obvious  difference  between 
the  conditions  in  the  instructions  and  those  contained 
in  the  arrangement,  accompanied  by  a  reference,  by  way 
of  recapitulation  to  the  circumstances  alluded  to  in  the 
paragraph  which  has  been  before  considered.  As  it  has 
been  shown  that  this  paragraph  did  not  contain  the 
obnoxious  idea,  it  needs  no  argument  to  show  it  is  not 
contained  in  this  sentence.  Indeed,  I  have  not  heard  it 
pretended  that  this  is  the  place  of  the  insult. 

I  have  thus  far  proceeded  by  way  of  a  strict  analysis 
of  every  part  of  the  correspondence  in  which  the  in- 
sulting idea  asserted  in  this  resolution  has  been  said  to 
be  conveyed.  I  have  omitted  no  part  which  has  been 


180  SPEECH   ON   THE 

cited  in  support  of  this  first  resolution,  and  think  I 
have  shown  that  it  exists  nowhere  in  the  letter  of 
the  23d  of  October,  either  in  direct  assertion  or  by- 
way of  reference.  And  it  is  concerning  what  is  con- 
tained in  that  letter  alone  that  the  resolution  under 
consideration  has  to  do.  The  House'  will  observe 
that,  according  to  all  rules  of  fair  reasoning,  it  would 
have  been  sufficient  for  me  to  have  limited  myself  to 
show  the  fallacy  of  the  arguments  of  the  advocates 
of  this  insult,  it  being  always  incumbent  on  those  who 
assert  the  existence  of  any  thing  to  prove  it.  I  have 
not,  however,  thought  my  duty  on  so  important  an 
occasion  fulfilled,  unless  I  undertook  to  prove  what  the 
lawyers  call  "  a  negative,"  and  to  show,  with  as  much 
strength  of  reasoning  as  I  had,  the  non-existence  of  the 
idea  asserted  in  this  resolution.  With  what  success,  I 
cheerfully  leave  to  the  decision  of  such  thoughtful  men 
in  the  nation  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  understand 
the  argument.  There  is,  however,  a  corroborative  view 
of  this  subject,  which  ought  not  to  be  omitted. 

The  insulting  idea  said  to  be  convej^ed  is,  that  Mr. 
Smith  had  a  knowledge  at  the  time  of  the  arrangement 
of  the  incompetency  of  Erskine's  powers;  and  this 
because  such  a  knowledge  was  one  of  the  essential 
circumstances  which  could  only  lead  to  a  disavowal. 
Now  it  does  happen  that  neither  Mr.  Erskine  nor  his 
government  enumerate  this  knowledge  of  our  govern- 
ment as  one  of  those  essential  circumstances.  On  the 
contrary,  they  constantly  omit  it,  when  formally  enum- 
erating those  circumstances.  Mr.  Canning  places  the 
disavowal  solely  on  the  footing  of  Mr.  Erskine's  hav- 
ing "  acted  not  only  not  in  conformity,  but  in  direct 


CENSUKE   OF   FRANCIS   J.   JACKSON".  181 

contradiction  to  his  instructions."  Mr.  Jackson,  also, 
in  his  letter  of  the  23d,  when  formally  enumerating 
the  causes  of  the  disavowal,  says  expressly  that  the 
disavowal  was  "  because  the  agreement  was  concluded 
in  violation  of  that  gentleman's  instructions,  and  alto- 
gether without  authority  to  subscribe  to  the  terms  of  it." 
Now  is  it  not  most  extraordinary  that  after  such  formal 
statements,  not  including  the  knowledge  of  our  govern- 
ment among  the  essential  circumstances,  that  it  is  on 
this  knowledge  the  British  government  intend  to  rely 
for  the  justification  of  their  disavowal  ?  I  simply  ask 
this  question,  if  the  British  did  intend  thus  to  rely  on 
the  previous  knowledge  of  our  government,  why  do  they 
always  omit  it  in  their  formal  enumerations  ?  And  if 
they  do  not  intend  thus  to  rely,  in  what  possible  way 
could  it  serve  that  government  thus  darkly  to  insinuate 
it  ?  But  as  if  it  were  intended  to  leave  this  House 
wholly  without  excuse,  in  passing  this  resolution, 
Mr.  Jackson  expressly  asserts,  in  this  very  letter  of 
the  23d  of  October,  that  the  information  of  that 
fact  was  derived  from  him,  the  knowledge  of  which, 
this  resolution  asserts,  he  intended  to  intimate  was 
known  at  the  time  of  the  arrangement  with  Mr.  Ers- 
kine.  For  he  specifically  says,  "  I  have  had  the  honor 
of  informing  you  that  it "  (Mr.  Erskine's  instruction) 
"  was  the  only  one  by  which  the  conditions  on  which 
he  was  to  conclude  were  prescribed."  Now  if  Mr. 
Jackson  had  remotely  intended  to  intimate  that  Mr. 
Smith  had  a  previous  knowledge  of  that  fact,  would  he 
have  asserted  that  he  was  indebted  to  him  (Mr.  Jack- 
son) for  the  information?  Conclusive  as  this  argument 
is,  there  is  yet  another  in  reserve,  which  is  a  clincher ; 


182  SPEECH   ON    THE 

and  that  is,  that  this  very  knowledge,  which  we  pro- 
pose solemnly  to  affirm  Mr.  Jackson  intimated  our  gov- 
ernment possessed  at  the  time  of  the  arrangement,  it 
is,  from  the  nature  of  things,  impossible  they  should 
have  possessed.  The  idea  asserted  to  be  intended  to 
be  conveyed  is  a  knowledge  in  our  government  that 
the  arrangement  was  entered  into  without  competent 
powers  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Erskine.  Now  the  fact  that 
Mr.  Erskine's  powers  were  incompetent,  it  was  impos- 
sible for  our  government  to  know,  except  from  the 
confession  of  Mr.  Erskine.  But  Mr.  Erskiue  before,  at 
the  time,  and  ever  since,  has  uniformly  asserted  the 
reverse.  So  that,  besides  all  the  other  absurdities  grow- 
ing out  of  this  resolution,  there  is  this  additional  one, 
that  it  accuses  Mr.  Jackson  of  the  senseless  stupidity  of 
insinuating  as  a  fact  a  knowledge  in  our  government, 
which,  from  the  undeniable  nature  of  things,  it  is  not 
possible  they  should  have  possessed.  Mr.  Speaker,  can 
any  argument  be  more  conclusive  ? 

1.  The  idea  is  not  conveyed  by  the  form  of  expres- 
sion. 2.  Mr.  Jackson,  though  expressly  enumerating 
the  only  causes  which  led  to  disavowal,  does  not  suggest 
this.  3.  Mr.  Jackson  expressly  asserts  that  the  knowl- 
edge that  these  were  the  only  instructions  was  derived 
from  him  ;  of  course  it  could  not  have  been  known  pre- 
vious to  the  arrangement.  4.  Had  he  been  absurd 
enough  to  attempt  to  convey  such  an  idea,  the  very 
nature  of  things  shows  that  it  could  not  exist.  I  con- 
fess I  am  ignorant  by  what  reasoning  the  non-existence 
of  an  insinuation  can  be  demonstrated,  if  it  be  not  by 
this  concurrence  of  arguments. 

Before  I  conclude  this  part  of  the  subject,  it  will  be 


CENSURE  OF  FRANCIS  J.  JACKSON.      183 

necessary  to  make  a  single  observation  or  two  on  the 
following  passage  in  Mr.  Jackson's  letter  of  the  4th 
of  November ;  for  although  our  assertion  has  relation, 
in  the  part  of  the  resolution  under  consideration,  only 
to  the  letter  of  the  28d  of  October,  yet  this  subse- 
quent passage  has  been  adduced  as  a  sort  of  accessory 
after  the  fact.  "  You  will  find  that,  in  my  correspond- 
ence with  you,  I  have  carefully  avoided  drawing  con- 
clusions that  did  not  necessarily  follow  from  the  prem- 
ises advanced  by  me,  and  least  of  all  should  I  think 
of  uttering  an  insinuation  where  I  was  unable  to  sub- 
stantiate a  fact.  To  facts,  as  I  have  become  acquainted 
with  them,  I  have  scrupulously  adhered."  This  the 
subsequent  part  of  the  resolution  under  debate  denom- 
inates "  the  repetition  of  the  same  intimation."  But  if 
the  argument  I  have  offered  be  correct,  there  was  no 
such  "  intimation "  in  the  preceding  letters,  and  of 
course  no  repetition  of  it  here.  For  if  he  had,  as  I 
think  I  have  proved  in  his  former  letters,  uttered  no 
such  insinuation  as  is  asserted,  then  all  the  allegations 
in  this  paragraph  are  wholly  harmless  and  decorous ; 
neither  disrespectful  nor  improper.  "  But  this,"  says 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Milnor),  "  is 
conclusive  to  my  mind  that  Mr.  Jackson  did  intend  to 
insult ;  for  if  he  had  not,  would  he  have  refrained  from 
giving  an  explanation  when  it  was  asked  ? "  That 
gentleman  will  recollect  that  the  assertion  of  this 
House  is  as  to  the  idea  which  Mr.  Jackson  has  con- 
veyed in  the  letter  of  the  23d,  not  as  to  the  idea  which 
he  intended  to  convey.  Suppose  he  intended  it,  and 
has  not  done  it,  our  assertion  is  still  false.  But  will 
that  gentleman  seriously  conclude,  contrary  to  so  obvi- 


184  SPEECH    ON   THE 

ous  a  course  of  argument,  that  he  has  asserted,  or  even 
intended  to  assert,  this  particular  idea,  merely  because 
he  does  not  choose  to  explain  it  ?  Are  there  not  a 
thousand  reasons  which  might  have  induced  Mr.  Jack- 
son not  to  explain,  consistent  with  being  perfectly  inno- 
cent of  the  intention  originally  to  convey  it  ?  Perhaps 
he  thought  that  he  had  already  been  explicit  enough. 
Perhaps  he  thought  the  explanation  was  asked  in  terms 
which  did  not  entitle  Mr.  Smith  to  receive  it.  Perhaps 
he  did  not  choose  to  give  this  satisfaction.  Well,  that 
now  is  "  very  ungentlemanly,"  says  the  gentleman 
from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Milnor).  I  agree,  if  he  pleases, 
so  it  was.  But  does  that  justify  this  resolution? 
Because  he  is  not  a  gentleman,  shall  we  assert  a  false- 
hood ? 

I  briefly  recapitulate  the  leading  points  of  my  argu- 
ment. When  Mr.  Jackson  asserts  "  that  the  substance 
of  the  instructions  was  known  to  our  government,"  the 
expression  cannot  convey  the  obnoxious  idea,  because 
it  is  not  pretended  that  in  those  instructions  the  exist- 
ence of  other  powers  was  excluded.  When  he  sa}rs, 
"  you  must  have  thought  it  unreasonable  to  complain 
of  disavowal,"  the  time  of  knowledge  implied  is  confined 
by  the  structure  of  the  sentence  to  the  time  the  disavowal 
was  known,  and  cannot  be  limited  backwards  to  the  time 
the  arrangement  was  made.  It  is  also  absurd  to  suppose 
that  Mr.  Jackson  would  intimate,  by  implication,  the 
knowledge  of  our  government  of  Mr.  Erskine's  incompe- 
tency  of  powers  at  the  time  of  arrangement  as  an  essen- 
tial circumstance,  on  which  the  king's  right  of  disavowal 
was  founded,  and  yet  omit  that  circumstance  in  a  formal 
enumeration.  And,  lastly,  it  is  still  more  absurd  to  sup- 


CENSTJKE   OF   FRANCIS   J.   JACKSON.  185 

pose  that  he  would  undertake  to  insinuate  a  knowledge 
which,  from  the  nature  of  things,  could  not  possibly 
exist. 

I  have  thus,  Mr.  Speaker,  submitted  to  a  strict  and 
minute  scrutiny  all  the  parts  of  this  correspondence 
which  have  been  adduced  by  any  one  in  support  of  the 
fact  asserted  in  this  resolution.  This  course,  however 
irksome,  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  adopt,  to  the  end  that 
no  exertion  of  mine  might  be  wanting  to  prevent  this 
House  from  passing  a  resolution  which,  in  my  appre- 
hension, is  pregnant  with  national  disgrace  and  other 
innumerable  evils. 

But  let  us  suppose  for  one  moment  that  the  fact 
asserted  in  this  resolution  is  true ;  that  the  insult  has 
been  offered ;  and  that  the  proof  is  not  obscure  and 
doubtful,  but  certain  and  clear.  I  ask,  is  it  wise,  is  it 
politic,  is  it  manly  for  a  national  legislature  to  utter  on 
any  occasion,  particularly  against  an  individual,  invec- 
tives so  full  of  contumely  and  bitterness  ?  Shall  we 
gain  any  thing  by  it?  Have  such  expressions  a  ten- 
dency to  strengthen  our  cause,  or  add  weight  and 
respectability  to  those  who  advocate  it  ?  In  private 
life  do  men  increase  respect  or  multiply  their  friends  by 
using  the  language  of  intemperate  abuse?  Sudden 
anger  may  be  an  excuse  for  an  individual ;  inability  to 
avenge  an  insult  may  afford  an  apology  to  him  for 
resorting  to  these  women's  weapons :  but  what  can 
excuse  a  nation  for  humiliating  itself  by  the  use  of  such 
vindictive  aspersions  ?  Can  we  plead  sudden  rage  ? 
we  on  whose  wrath  thirty  suns  have  gone  down  ?  Is 
this  nation  prepared  to  resort  for  apologies  to  its  weak- 
ness, and  to  confess  that,  being  unable  to  do  any  thing 


186  SPEECH  ON   THE 

else,  it  will  strive  to  envenom  its  adversary  with  the 
tongue  ?  But  our  honor  is  assailed.  Is  this  a  medica- 
ment for  its  wounds  ?  If  not,  why  engage  in  such  re- 
taliatory insults  ?  Which  is  best,  to  leave  the  British 
monarch  at  liberty  to  decide  upon  the  conduct  of  his 
minister,  without  any  deduction  or  sympathy  on  ac- 
count of  our  virulence,  or  to  necessitate  him,  in  meas- 
uring out  justice,  to  put  your  intemperance  in  the  scale 
against  his  imprudence  ?  Railing  for  railing  is  a  fail- 
offset  all  over  the  world.  And  I  ask  gentlemen  to  con- 
sider whether  it  be  not  an  equivalent  for  a  constructive 
insinuation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  hand  of  the 
chief  magistrate  of  this  nation  is  in  this  thing.  In  every 
aspect  this  resolution  is  at  war  with  that  wise  and  tem- 
perate ground  on  which  he  has  placed  this  insult  in 
the  letter  to  Mr.  Pinkney.  "  You  are  particularly 
instructed,  in  making  those  communications,  to  do  it  in 
a  manner  that  will  leave  no  doubt  of  the  undiminished 
desire  of  the  United  States  to  unite  in  all  the  means 
the  best  calculated  to  establish  the  relations  of  the  two 
countries  on  the  solid  foundation  of  justice,  of  friend- 
ship, and  of  mutual  interests."  Is  there  a  man  in  this 
House  who  can  lay  his  hand  on  his  heart  and  say  that, 
by  adopting  this  resolution,  we  are  about  "  to  unite  in 
all  means  the  best  calculated  to  establish  the  relations 
of  the  two  countries  on  the  solid  foundations  of  justice, 
friendship,  and  mutual  interest  "  ?  I  hesitate  not  to  say 
that  there  is  no  man  who  can  make  such  an  assevera- 
tion. 

But  if  it  would  be  wise  and  politic  to  refrain  from 
uttering  this  opprobrious  resolution,  in  case  the  insult 


CENSURE   OF   FRANCIS   J.   JACKSON.  187 

was  gross,  palpable,  and  undeniable,  how  much  more 
wise  and  politic  if  this  insult  be  only  dubious,  and  has, 
at  best,  but  a  glimmering  existence  ?  But  suppose  the 
assertion  contained  in  this  resolution  be,  as  it  appears  to 
many  minds,  —  and  certainly  to  mine, — false,  I  ask,  what 
worse  disgrace,  what  lower  depth  of  infamy,  can  there 
be  for  a  nation  than  deliberately  to  assert  a  falsehood, 
and  to  make  that  falsehood  the  groundwork  of  a  grad- 
uated scale  of  atrocious  aspersions  upon  the  character  of 
a  public  minister  ? 

When  I  say  that  the  assertion  contained  in  this  reso- 
lution is  false,  I  beg  gentlemen  distinctly  to  understand 
me.  I  speak  only  as  it  respects  the  effects  of  evidence 
upon  my  mind.  I  pretend  not  to  make  my  perceptions 
the  standard  of  those  of  any  other.  I  know  the  nature 
of  the  human  mind,  and  how  imperceptibly  even  to 
ourselves  passion  and  preconception  will  throw,  as  it 
were,  a  mist  before  the  intellectual  eye,  and  bend  or 
scatter  the  rays  of  evidence  before  they  strike  on  its 
vision.  On  a  question  of  this  kind,  as  I  would  not  trust 
the  casual  impressions  of  others,  so  I  have  been  equally 
unwilling  to  trust  my  own.  I  have  therefore  submitted 
the  grounds  of  my  opinion  to  a  rigid  analysis.  The 
process  and  the  result  of  my  reasonings  I  have  laid 
before  this  House.  If  that  which  to  me  appears  a  pal- 
pable falsehood,  to  others  appeared  a  truth,  I  condemn 
not  them,  —  I  can  only  lament  such  a  diversity  on  a 
point  which,  in  its  consequences,  may  be  so  important 
to  the  peace  and  the  character  of  the  country. 

But  this  resolution  was  devised  for  the  purpose  of 
promoting  unanimity.  Is  there  a  man  in  this  House  who 
believes  it  ?  Did  you  ever  hear,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  laii- 


188  SPEECH   ON"  THE 

guage  of  reproach  and  of  insult  was  the  signal  for  con- 
ciliation ?  Did  you  ever  know  contending  parties  made 
to  harmonize  by  terms  of  insult,  of  reproach,  and  con- 
tugnely?  No,  sir.  I  deprecate  this  resolution  on  this 
very  account,  that  it  is  much  more  like  the  torch  of  the 
furies  than  like  the  token  of  friendship.  Accordingly, 
it  has  had  the  effect  of  enkindling  party  passions  in  the 
House,  which  had  begun  in  some  degree  to  be  allayed. 
It  could  not  possibly  be  otherwise.  A  question  is  raised 
concerning  a  constructive  insult.  Of  all  topics  of  dispute, 
those  relative  to  the  meaning  of  terms  are  most  likely 
to  beget  diversity  and  obstinacy  in  opinion.  But  this 
is  not  all.  On  a  question  merely  relative  to  the  con- 
struction of  particular  expressions,  all  the  great  and 
critical  relations  of  the  nation  have  been  discussed.  Is 
it  possible  to  conceive  that  such  a  question  as  this,  on 
which  the  debate  has  been  thus  conducted,  could  be 
productive  of  any  thing  else  than  discord  and  conten- 
tion ? 

For  my  own  part,  I  have  purposely  avoided  all  refer- 
ence to  any  of  the  great  questions  which  agitate  the 
nation.  I  should  deem  myself  humiliated  to  discuss 
them  under  a  resolution  of  this  kind,  which  in  truth 
decides  nothing  but  our  opinion  of  the  meaning  of  Mr. 
Jackson's  language,  and  our  sense  of  its  nature  ;  and  has, 
strictly  speaking,  nothing  to  do  with  any  of  the  national 
questions  which  have  been  drawn  into  debate. 

I  declare,  therefore,  distinctly  that  I  oppose  and  vote 
against  this  resolution  from  no  one  consideration  rela- 
tive to  Great  Britain  or  the  United  States ;  from  none 
of  friendship  or  animosity  to  any  one  man,  or  set  of  men  : 
but  simply  and  solely  for  this  one  reason,  that  in  my 


CENSURE  OF  FKANCIS  J.  JACKSON.       189 

conception  the  assertion  contained  in  this  resolution  is 
a  falsehood. 

But  it  is  said  that  this  resolution  must  be  taken  as  "  a 
test  of  patriotism."  To  this  I  have  but  one  answer.  If 
patriotism  ask  me  to  assert  a  falsehood,  I  have  no  hesi- 
tation in  telling  patriotism,  "I  am  not  prepared  to 
make  that  sacrifice."  The  duty  we  owe  to  our  country 
is  indeed  among  the  most  solemn  and  impressive  of  all 
obligations ;  yet,  high  as  it  may  be,  it  is  nevertheless 
subordinate  to  that  which  we  owe  to  that  Being  with 
whose  name  and  character  truth  is  identified.  In  this 
respect,  I  deem  myself  acting  upon  this  resolution 
under  a  higher  responsibility  than  either  to  this  House 
or  to  this  people. 


SPEECH 


ON  THE  PASSAGE  OF  THE  BILL  TO  ENABLE  THE 
PEOPLE  OF  THE  TERRITORY  OF  ORLEANS  TO 
FORM  A  CONSTITUTION  AND  STATE  GOVERNMENT, 
AND  FOR  THE  ADMISSION  OF  SUCH  STATE  INTO 
THE  UNION. 

JAN.  14,  1811. 


SPEECH 

ON  THE  PASSAGE  OF  THE  BILL  TO  ENABLE  THE  PEOPLE 
OF  THE  TERRITORY  OF  ORLEANS  TO  FORM  A  CON- 
STITUTION AND  STATE  GOVERNMENT,  AND  FOR  THE 
ADMISSION  OF  SUCH  STATE  INTO  THE  UNION. 

JAN.  14,   1811. 


[Tins  is  the  most  famous  speech  Mr.  Quincy  ever  delivered. 
It  made  the  deepest  impression  of  any  at  the  time  it  was 
delivered,  and  has  continued  to  be  quoted,  rightly  or  wrongly, 
almost  to  the  present  day.  It  was  recalled  to  recollection  at  the 
time  of  the  excitement  attending  the  admission  of  Texas,  and, 
indeed,  at  all  times  when  questions  as  to  gross  violations  of  the 
Constitution  were  under  discussion.  It  was  cited  especially  at 
the  time  of  the  Rebellion,  and  with  an  approbation  I  am  sure  it 
did  not  deserve,  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  as  containing  the 
same  doctrine  of  secession  which  was  held  by  the  promoters 
and  defenders  of  that  revolt.  I  do  not  apprehend  that  any 
candid  reader  of  the  speech  will  deem  this  opinion  well  grounded. 
Mr.  Quincy  did  not  hold  that  a  State  had  a  constitutional  or  a 
natural  right  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  when  it  thought  it  best 
for  its  own  interests.  He  did  maintain  that  such  a  violation  of 
the  fundamental  compact  might  be  made  that  the  moral  obligation 
to  maintain  it  ceased  and  the  right  of  revolution  attached.  And 
he  undoubtedly  believed  and  emphatically  affirmed  in  this  speech 
that  this  act  was  such  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  as  released 
the  States  from  their  constitutional  obligations,  and  remitted 
them  to  their  original  right  anterior  to  the  Constitution,  if  they 
chose  to  appeal  to  it,  to  form  such  a  new  government  as  should 

13 


194  SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF 

be  most  for  their  own  advantage.  Right  or  wrong,  he  adhered 
to  the  opinions  expressed  in  this  speech  to  the  day  of  his  death. 

It  will  be  observed  that  neither  he  nor  his  party  objected  to 
the  admission  of  Louisiana  in  itself  considered.  It  was  neces- 
sary for  the  protection  of  the  South-western  States  that  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi  should  be  secured  by  the  United 
States.  His  position  was,  that  the  provision  in  the  Constitution 
for  the  erecting  of  new  States  applied  only  to  the  territory  in  the 
possession  of  the  nation  at  the  time  of  its  adoption,  and  that  it 
never  entered  into  the  hearts  of  its  framers  to  conceive  that  the 
whole  continent  might  be  annexed  by  virtue  of  that  provision ; 
and  that  such  annexation  could  be  constitutionally  effected  only  by 
an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  authorizing  it.  This  was  also 
the  opinion  of  Mr.  Jefferson  himself,  as  appears  from  his  own 
letters.  In  one  to  Mr.  Breckenridge,  August  12, 1802,  he  writes 
of  the  purchase  of  this  territory :  "  They  (the  two  Houses  of 
Congress),  I  presume,  will  do  their  duty  to  their  country  in  rati- 
fying and  paying  for  it ;  but  I  suppose  they  must  then  appeal  to 
the  nation  for  an  additional  article  in  the  Constitution  approv- 
ing and  confirming  an  act  which  the  nation  had  not  previously 
authorized.  The  Constitution  has  made  no  provision  for  our 
holding  foreign  territory,  still  less  for  incorporating  foreign 
nations  into  our  Union."  And,  again,  in  a  letter  of  Levi  Lincoln, 
August  30,  1803,  he  says  :  "  The  less  said  about  any  constitutional 
difficulty  the  better.  I  find  but  one  opinion  as  to  the  necessity  of 
shutting  up  the  Constitution  for  some  time." 

The  object  of  this  coup  d'etat,  thus  profligately  perpetrated, 
was  not  merely  the  acquisition  of  the  vast  territory  opened  to 
slave  labor  comprised  within  the  Territory  of  Orleans.  Its 
design  was  to  place  the  indefinite  extension  of  slave  territory  in 
the  hands  of  a  majority  of  Congress,  in  which  the  united  South 
were  always  sure  of  holding  the  balance  of  power.  The  pur- 
chase of  Florida,  the  annexation  of  Texas,  the  Mexican  war 
and  the  enormous  addition  of  territory  consequent  upon  it,  were 
all  effected  by  acts  of  Congress,  and  all  in  the  interest  of 
slavery.  By  this  act  the  control  of  the  nation  was  delivered 
over  to  the  slave  powers  for  fifty  years,  and  it  is  impossible  to 


LOUISIANA   AS   A  STATE.  195 

*  say  how  much  longer  that  domination  might  have  lasted  had  it 
not  been  for  the  pride  going  before  destruction  that  it  fostered, 
and  which  tempted  it  to  take  the  sword  by  which  it  perished. 
I  am  not  afraid  to  rest  Mr.  Quincy's  fame,  as  a  sagacious  states- 
man and  a  true  prophet,  upon  this  speech.  The  history  of  the 
next  half-century,  I  think,  justifies  this  claim,  by  the  tale  it  tells 
of  the  supremacy  of  slavery  through  the  operation  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  this  very  bill,  and  of  the  convulsion  which  followed  the 
first  successful  resistance  to  its  absolute  sway  and  unlimited 
extension.  —  ED.] 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  address  you,  sir,  with  an  anxiety 
and  distress  of  mind,  with  me,  wholly  unprecedented. 
The  friends  of  this  bill  seem  to  consider  it  as  the  exer- 
cise of  a  common  power,  as  an  ordinary  affair,  a  mere 
municipal  regulation  which  they  expect  to  see  pass  with- 
out other  questions  than  those  concerning  details.  But, 
sir,  the  principle  of  this  bill  materially  affects  the  liber- 
ties and  rights  of  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States. 
To  me  it  appears  that  it  would  justify  a  revolution  in 
this  country  ;  and  that,  in  no  great  length  of  time,  it  may 
produce  it.  When  I  see  the  zeal  and  perseverance  with 
which  this  bill  has  been  urged  along  its  parliamentary 
path,  when  I  know  the  local  interests  and  associated 
projects  which  combine  to  promote  its  success,  all  oppo- 
sition to  it  seems  manifestly  unavailing.  I  am  almost 
tempted  to  leave,  without  a  struggle,  my  country  to  its 
fate.  But,  sir,  while  there  is  life,  there  is  hope.  So 
long  as  the  fatal  shaft  has  not  yet  sped,  if  heaven  so 
will,  the  bow  may  be  broken  and  the  vigor  of  the  mis- 
chief-meditating arm  withered.  If  there  be  a  man  in 
this  House  or  nation  who  cherishes  the  Constitution 
under  which  we  are  assembled,  as  the  chief  stay  of  his 


196  SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF 

hope,  as  the  light  which  is  destined  to  gladden  his  own 
day,  and  to  soften  even  the  gloom  of  the  grave  by  the 
prospect  it  sheds  over  his  children,  I  fall  not  behind 
him  in  such  sentiments.  I  will  yield  to  no  man  in 
attachment  to  this  Constitution,  in  veneration  for  the 
sages  who  laid  its  foundations,  in  devotion  to  those 
principles  which  form  its  cement  and  constitute  its 
proportions.  What,  then,  must  be  my  feelings,  —  what 
ought  to  be  the  feelings  of  a  man  cherishing  such  sen- 
timents, when  he  sees  an  act  contemplated  which  lays 
ruin  at  the  root  of  all  these  hopes  ?  when  he  sees  a 
principle  of  action  about  to  be  usurped,  before  the  oper- 
ation of  which  the  bands  of  this  Constitution  are  no 
more  than  flax  before  the  fire,  or  stubble  before  the 
whirlwind.  When  this  bill  passes,  such  an  act  is  done, 
and  such  a  principle  usurped. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  a  great  rule  of  human  con- 
duct which  he  who  honestly  observes  cannot  err  widely 
from  "the  path  of  his  sought  duty.  It  is  to  be  very 
scrupulous  concerning  the  principles  you  select  as  the 
test  of  your  rights  and  obligations  ;  to  be  very  faithful 
in  noticing  the  result  of  their  application  ;  and  to  be 
very  fearless  in  tracing  and  exposing  their  immediate 
effects  and  distant  consequences.  Under  the  sanction 
of  this  rule  of  conduct,  I  am  compelled  to  declare  it  as 
my  deliberate  opinion  that,  if  this  bill  passes,  the  bonds  of 
this  Union  are  virtually  dissolved ;  that  the  States  ivhich 
compose  it  are  free  from  their  moral  obligations  ;  and  that 
as  it  will  be  the  right  of  all,  so  it  will  be  the  duty  of  some 
to  prepare  definitely  for  a  separation  —  amicably,  if  they 
can  ;  violently,  if  they  must. 

[Mr.  Quincy  was  here  called  to  order  by  Mr.  Pom- 


LOUISIANA  AS   A   STATE.  197 

dexter,  delegate  from  the  Mississippi  Territory,  for  the 
words  quoted.  After  it  was  decided,  upon  an  appeal 
to  the  House,  that  Mr.  Quincy  was  in  order,  he  pro- 
ceeded.] 

I  rejoice,  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the  result  of  this  appeal ; 
not  from  any  personal  consideration,  but  from  the  re- 
spect paid  to  the  essential  rights  of  the  people  in  one 
of  their  representatives.  When  I  spoke  of  the  separa- 
tion of  the  States,  as  resulting  from  the  violation  of  the 
Constitution  contemplated  in  this  bill,  I  spoke  of  it  as 
a  necessity  deeply  to  be  deprecated,  but  as  resulting 
from  causes  so  certain  and  obvious  as  to  be  absolutely 
inevitable,  when  the  effect  of  the  principle  is  practically 
experienced.  It  is  to  preserve,  to  guard  the  Constitu- 
tion of  my  country,  that  I  denounce  this  attempt.  I 
would  rouse  the  attention  of  gentlemen  from  the  apathy 
with  which  they  seem  beset.  These  observations  are 
not  made  in  a  corner ;  there  is  no  low  intrigue,  —  no 
secret  machination.  I  am  on  the  people's  own  ground  ; 
to  them  I  appeal  concerning  their  own  rights,  their  own 
liberties,  their  own  intent  in  adopting  this  Constitution. 
The  voice  I  have  uttered,  at  which  gentlemen  startle 
with  such  agitation,  is  no  unfriendly  voice.  I  intended 
it  as  a  voice  of  warning.  By  this  people  and  by  the 
event,  if  this  bill  passes,  I  am  willing  to  be  judged, 
whether  it  be  not  a  voice  of  wisdom. 

The  bill  which  is  now  proposed  to  be  passed  has  this 
assumed  principle  for  its  basis,  —  that  the  three  branches 
of  this  national  government,  without  recurrence  to  con- 
ventions of  the  people  in  the  States,  or  to  the  legisla- 
tures of  the  States,  are  authorized  to  admit  new  partners 
to  a  share  of  the  political  power  in  countries  out  of  the 


198  SPEECH   ON   THE  ADMISSION   OF 

original  limits  of  the  United  States.  Now  this  assumed 
principle  I  maintain  to  be  altogether  without  any  sanc- 
tion in  the  Constitution.  I  declare  it  to  be  a  manifest 
and  atrocious  usurpation  of  power ;  of  a  nature  dissolv- 
ing, according  to  undeniable  principles  of  moral  law,  the 
obligations  of  our  national  compact,  and  leading  to  all 
the  awful  consequences  which  flow  from  such  a  state  of 
things. 

Concerning  this  assumed  principle,  which  is  the  basis 
of  this  bill,  this  is  the  general  position  on  which  I  rest 
my  argument, —  that  if  the  authority  now  proposed  to  be 
exercised  be  delegated  to  the  three  branches  of  the  gov- 
ernment, by  virtue  of  the  Constitution,  it  results  either 
from  its  general  nature  or  from  its  particular  provisions. 
I  shall  consider  distinctly  both  these  sources,  in  relation 
to  this  pretended  power. 

Touching  the  general  nature  of  the  instrument  called 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  there  is  no  ob- 
scurity :  it  has  no  fabled  descent,  like  the  palladium  of 
ancient  Troy,  from  the.  heavens.  Its  origin  is  not  con- 
fused by  the  mists  of  time,  or  hidden  by  the  darkness 
of  past,  unexplored  ages  :  it  is  the  fabric  of  our  day. 
Some  now  living  had  a  share  in  its  construction  :  all  of 
us  stood  by  and  saw  the  rising  of  the  edifice.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  about  its  nature.  It  is  a  political  com- 
pact. By  whom  ?  and  about  what  ?  The  preamble  to 
the  instrument  will  answer  these  questions :  — 

"  "We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to 
form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish  justice,  insure  do- 
mestic tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common  defence, 
promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings 
of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and 


LOUISIANA  AS   A   STATE.  199 

establish   this   Constitution   for  the   United   States   of 
America." 

It  is  we,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  for  our- 
selves and  our  posterity,  not  for  the  people  of  Louisi- 
ana, nor  for  the  people  of  New  Orleans,  or  of  Canada. 
None  of  these  enter  into  the  scope  of  the  instrument :  it 
embraces  only  "  the  United  States  of  America."  Who 
these  are  it  may  seem  strange  in  this  place  to  inquire., 
But  truly,  sir,  our  imaginations  have,  of  late,  been  so 
accustomed  to  wander  after  new  settlements  to  the 
very  ends  of  the  earth,  that  it  will  not  be  time  ill  spent 
to  inquire  what  this  phrase  means  and  what  it  includes. 
These  are  not  terms  adopted  at  hazard ;  they  have  refer- 
ence to  a  state  of  things  existing  anterior  to  the  Consti- 
tution. When  the  people  of  the  present  United  States 
began  to  contemplate  a  severance  from  their  parent 
State,  it  was  a  long  time  before  they  fixed  definitively 
the  name  by  which  they  would  be  designated.  In  1774, 
they  called  themselves  "  the  Colonies  and  Provinces  of 
North  America  ;  "  in  1775,  "  the  Representatives  of  the 
United  Colonies  of  North  America ; "  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  "  the  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  ;  "  and,  finally,  in  the  articles  of  con- 
federation the  style  of  the  confederacy  is  declared  to  be 
"  the  United  States  of  America."  It  was  with  refer- 
ence to  the  old  articles  of  confederation,  and  to  preserve 
the  identity  and  established  individuality  of  their  char- 
acter, that  the  preamble  to  this  Constitution,  not  con- 
tent simply  with  declaring  that  it  is  "  we  the  people  of 
the  United  States  "  who  enter  into  this  compact,  adds 
that  it  is  for  "  the  United  States  of  America."  Con- 
cerning the  territory  contemplated  by  the  people  of 


200  SPEECH    ON   THE   ADMISSION    OF 

the  United  States  in  these  general  terms,  there  can  be 
no  dispute  :  it  is  settled  by  the  treaty  of  peace,  and 
included  within  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  the  St.  Croix,  the 
lakes,  and  more  precisely,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  fron- 
tier, having  relation  to  the  present  argument,  within 
"  a  line  to  be  drawn  through  the  middle  of  the  river 
Mississippi  until  it  intersect  the  northernmost  part  of 
the  thirty-first  degree  of  north  latitude,  thence  within 
a  line  drawn  due  east  on  this  degree  of  latitude  to  the 
river  Appalachicola,  thence  along  the  middle  of  this  river 
to  its  junction  with  the  Flint  river,  thence  straight  to 
the  head  of  the  St.  Mary's  river,  and  thence  down  the 
St.  Mary's  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean." 

I  have  been  thus  particular  to  draw  the  minds  of  gen- 
tlemen distinctly  to  the  meaning  of  the  terms  used  in 
the  preamble  ;  to  the  extent  which  "  the  United  States" 
then  included ;  and  to  the  fact  that  neither  Xew 
Orleans  nor  Louisiana  was  within  the  comprehension 
of  the  terms  of  this  instrument.  It  is  sufficient  for  the 
present  branch  of  my  argument  to  say  that  there  is 
nothing  in  the  general  nature  of  this  compact  from 
which  the  power  contemplated  to  be  exercised  in  this 
bill  results.  On  the  contrary,  as  the  introduction  of  a 
new  associate  in  political  power  implies,  necessarily,  a 
new  division  of  power  and  consequent  diminution  of 
the  relative  proportion  of  the  former  proprietors  of  it, 
there  can  certainly  be  nothing  more  obvious  than  that, 
from  the  general  nature  of  the  instrument,  no  power  can 
result  to  diminish  and  give  away  to  strangers  any  pro- 
portion of  the  rights  of  the  original  partners.  If  such 
a  power  exist,  it  must  be  found,  then,  in  the  particu- 
lar provisions  in  the  Constitution.  The  question  now 


LOUISIANA  AS   A   STATE.  201 

arising  is,  in  which  of  these  provisions  is  given  the 
power  to  admit  new  States,  to  be  created  in  Territories 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  old  United  States.  If  it  exist 
anywhere,  it  is  either  in  the  third  section  of  the  fourth 
article  of  the  Constitution  or  in  the  treaty-making 
power.  If  it  result  from  neither  of  these,  it  is  not 
pretended  to  be  found  anywhere  else. 

That  part  of  the  third  section  of  the  fourth  article 
on  which  the  advocates  of  this  bill  rely  is  the  following  : 
"  New  States  may  be  admitted,  by  the  Congress,  into 
this  Union  ;  but  no  new  State  shall  be  formed  or  erected 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  other  State,  nor  any  State 
be  formed  by  the  junction  of  two  or  more  States,  or 
parts  of  States,  without  the  consent  of  the  legislatures 
of  the  States  concerned,  as  well  as  of  the  Congress." 

I  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  first  clause  of  this  para- 
graph has  been  read,  with  all  the  superciliousness  of  a 
grammarian's  triumph,  "  New  States  may  be  admitted, 
by  the  Congress,  into  this  Union,"  accompanied  with 
this  most  consequential  inquiry :  "  Is  not  this  a  new 
State  to  be  admitted  ?  And  is  not  here  an  express 
authority  ?  "  I  have  no  doubt  this  is  a  full  and  satis- 
factory argument  to  every  one  who  is  content  with  the 
mere  colors  and  superficies  of  things.  And  if  we  were 
now  at  the  bar  of  some  stall-fed  justice,  the  inquiry 
would  insure  victory  to  the  maker  of  it,  to  the  manifest 
delight  of  the  constables  and  suitors  of  his  court.  But, 
sir,  we  are  now  before  the  tribunal  of  the  M^hole  Ameri- 
can people  ;  reasoning  concerning  their  liberties,  their 
rights,  their  Constitution.  These  are  not  to  be  made 
the  victims  of  the  inevitable  obscurity  of  general  terms, 
nor  the  sport  of  verbal  criticism.  The  question  is  con- 


202  SPEECH   ON   THE  ADMISSION  OF 

cerning  the  intent  of  the  American  people,  the  proprie- 
tors of  the  old  United  States,  when  they  agreed  to  this 
article.  Dictionaries  and  spelling-books  are  here  of  no 
authority.  Neither  Johnson  nor  Walker  nor  Webster 
nor  Dilworth  has  any  voice  in  this  matter.  Sir,  the 
question  concerns  the  proportion  of  power  reserved  by 
this  Constitution  to  every  State  in  this  Union.  Have 
the  three  branches  of  this  government  a  right,  at  will, 
to  weaken  and  outweigh  the  influence  respectively  se- 
cured to  each  State  in  this  compact,  by  introducing 
at  pleasure  new  partners  situate  beyond  the  old  limits 
of  the  United  States?  The  question  has  not  relation 
merely  to  New  Orleans.  The  great  objection  is  to  the 
principle  of  the  bill.  If  this  principle  be  admitted,  the 
whole  space  of  Louisiana  —  greater,  it  is  said,  than  the 
entire  extent  of  the  old  United  States  —  will  be  a  mighty 
theatre  in  which  this  government  assumes  the  right  of 
exercising  this  unparalleled  power.  And  it  will  be  — 
there  is  no  concealment  it  is  intended  to  be  —  exercised. 
Nor  will  it  stop  until  the  very  name  and  nature  of  the 
old  partners  be  overwhelmed  by  new-comers  into  the 
confederacy.  Sir,  the  question  goes  to  the  very  root  of 
the  power  and  influence  of  the  present  members  of  this 
Union.  The  real  intent  of  this  article  is,  therefore,  an 
inquiry  of  most  serious  import ;  and  is  to  be  settled  only 
by  a  recurrence  to  the  known  history  and  known  rela- 
tions of  this  people  and  their  Constitution.  These,  I 
maintain,  support  this  position,  that  the  terms  "  new 
States,"  in  this  article,  do  intend  new  political  sover- 
eignties, to  be  formed  within  the  original  limits  of  the 
United  States ;  and  do  not  intend  new  political  sov- 
ereignties, with  territorial  annexations,  to  be  created 


LOUISIANA  AS   A   STATE.  203 

without  the  original  limits  of  the  United  States.  I 
undertake  to  support  both  branches  of  this  position  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  people  of  these  United  States. 
As  to  any  expectation  of  conviction  on  this  floor,  I  know 
the  nature  of  the  ground,  and  how  hopeless  any  argu- 
ments are  which  thwart  a  concerted  course  of  meas- 
ures. 

I  recur,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  evidence  of  history. 
This  furnishes  the  following  leading  fact,  —  that  before, 
and  at  the  time  of,  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution, 
the  creation  of  new  political  sovereignties,  within  the 
limits  of  the  old  United  States,  was  contemplated. 
Among  the  records  of  the  old  Congress,  will  be  found  a 
resolution,  passed  as  long  ago  as  the  10th  of  October, 
1780,  contemplating  the  cession  of  unappropriated 
lands  to  the  United  States,  accompanied  by  a  provision, 
"  that  they  shall  be  disposed  of  for  the  common  benefit 
of  the  United  States  and  be  settled  and  formed  into  dis- 
tinct republican  States,  which  shall  become  members  of 
the  federal  union,  and  have  the  same  rights  of  sover- 
eignty, freedom,  and  independence  as  the  other  States." 
Afterwards,  on  the  7th  of  July,  1786,  the  subject  of 
"  laying  out  and  forming  into  States  "  the  country  lying 
north-west  of  the  river  Ohio  came  under  the  considera- 
tion of  the  same  body  ;  and  another  resolution  was  passed 
recommending  to  the  legislature  of  Virginia  to  revise 
their  act  of  cession,  so  as  to  permit  a  more  eligible  divi- 
sion of  that  portion  of  territory  derived  from  her ; 
"  which  States,"  it  proceeds  to  declare,  "  shall  hereafter 
become  members  of  the  federal  union,  and  have  the 
same  rights  of  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence 
as  the  original  States,  in  conformity  with  the  resolution 


204  SPEECH   ON   THE  ADMISSION   OF 

of  Congress  of  the  10th  of  October,  1780."  All  the 
Territories  to  which  these  resolutions  had  reference 
were,  undeniably,  within  the  ancient  limits  of  the 
United  States.  Here,  then,  is  a  leading  fact,  that  the 
article  in  the  Constitution  had  a  condition  of  things, 
notorious  at  the  time  when  it  was  adopted,  upon  which 
it  was  to  act,  and  to  meet  the  exigency  resulting  from 
which  such  an  article  was  requisite.  That  is  to  say, 
new  States,  within  the  limits  of  the  old  United  States, 
were  contemplated  at  the  time  when  the  foundations 
of  the  Constitution  were  laid.  But  we  have  another 
authority  upon  this  point,  which  is,  in  truth,  a  contem- 
poraneous exposition  of  this  article  of  the  Constitution. 
I  allude  to  the  resolution  passed  on  the  3d  of  July,  1788, 
in  the  words  following  :  "  Whereas  application  has  been 
lately  made  to  Congress  by  the  legislature  of  Virginia, 
and  the  district  of  Kentucky,  for  the  admission  of  the 
said  district  into  the  federal  union,  as  a  separate  mem- 
ber thereof,  on  the  terms  contained  in  the  acts  of  the 
said  legislature,  and  in  the  resolutions  of  the  said  dis- 
trict, relative  to  the  premises  :  And  whereas  Congress, 
having  fully  considered  the  subject,  did,  on  the  third 
day  of  June  last,  resolve  that  it  is  expedient  that  the 
said  district  be  erected  into  a  sovereign  and  independent 
State  and  a  separate  member  of  the  federal  union  ;  and 
appointed  a  committee  to  report  and  act  accordingly, 
which  committee  on  the  second  instant  was  discharged, 
it  appearing  that  nine  States  had  adopted  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  lately  submitted  to  conven- 
tions of  the  people :  And  whereas  a  new  confederacy 
is  formed  among  the  ratifying  States,  and  there  is  rea- 
son to  believe  that  the  State  of  Virginia,  including  the 


LOUISIANA  AS  A  STATE.  205 

said  district,  did,  on  the  25th  of  June  last,  become  a 
member  of  the  said  confederacy :  And  whereas  an  act 
of  Congress,  in  the  present  state  of  the  government  of 
the  country,  severing  a  part  of  the  said  State  from  the 
other  parts  thereof,  and  admitting  it  into  the  confed- 
eracy, formed  by  the  articles  of  confederation  and  per- 
petual union,  as  an  independent  member  thereof,  may 
be  attended  with  many  inconveniences,  while  it  can 
have  no  effect  to  make  the  said  district  a  separate  mem- 
ber of  the  federal  union  formed  by  the  adoption  of  the 
said  Constitution,  and  therefore  it  must  be  manifestly 
improper  for  Congress,  assembled  under  the  articles  of 
confederation,  to  adopt  any  other  measures  relative  to  the 
premises  than  those  which  express  their  sense  that 
the  said  district  ought  to  be  an  independent  member  of 
the  Union  as  soon  as  circumstances  shall  permit  proper 
measures  to  be  adopted  for  that  purpose,  —  "  Resolved, 
that  a  copy  of  the  proceedings  of  Congress,  relative  to 
the  independency  of  the  district  of  Kentucky,  be  trans- 
mitted to  the  legislature  of  Virginia,  and  also  to  Samuel 
M'Dowell,  Esq.,  late  President  of  the  said  Convention ; 
and  that  the'said  legislature,  and  the  inhabitants  of  the 
district  aforesaid,  be  informed  that,  as  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  is  now  ratified,  Congress  think  it 
unadvisable  to  adopt  any  further  measures  for  admit- 
ting the  district  of  Kentucky  into  the  federal  union,  as 
an  independent  member  thereof,  under  the  articles  of 
confederation  and  perpetual  union ;  but  that  Congress, 
thinking  it  expedient  that  the  said  district  be  made  a 
separate  State  and  member  of  the  Union,  as  soon  after 
proceedings  shall  commence  under  the  said  Constitution 
as  circumstances  shall  permit,  recommends  it  to  the 


206  SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION  OF 

said  legislature,  and  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  dis- 
trict, so  to  alter  their  acts  and  resolutions  relative  to  the 
premises,  as  to  render  them  conformable  to  the  provi- 
sions made  in  the  said  Constitution,  to  the  end  that  no 
impediment  may  be  in  the  way  of  the  speedy  accom- 
plishment of  this  important  business." 

In  this  resolution  of  the  old  Congress  it  is  expressly 
declared  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
having  been  adopted  by  nine  States,  an  act  of  the  old 
Congress  could  have  no  effect  to  make  Kentucky  a 
separate  member  of  the  Union,  and  that,  although  they 
thought  it  expedient  that  it  should  so  be  admitted,  yet 
that  this  could  only  be  done  under  the  provisions  made 
in  the  new  Constitution.  It  is  impossible  to  have  a  more 
direct  contemporaneous  evidence  that  the  case  con- 
templated in  this  article  was  that  of  Territories  within 
the  limits  of  the  old  United  States ;  yet  the  gentleman 
from  North  Carolina,  Mr.  Macon,  for  whose  integrity 
and  independence  I  have  very  great  respect,  told  us  the 
other  day,  that  "  if  this  article  had  not  Territories  with- 
out the  limits  of  the  old  United  States  to  act  upon,  it 
would  be  wholly  without  meaning ;  because  the  ordinance 
of  the  old  Congress  had  secured  the  right  to  the  States 
within  the  old  United  States,  and  a  provision  for  that 
object  in  the  new  Constitution  was  wholly  unnecessary." 
Now,  I  will  appeal  to  the  gentleman's  own  candor  if  the 
very  reverse  of  the  conclusion  he  draws  is  not  the  true 
one,  after  he  has  considered  the  following  fact,  —  that  by 
this  ordinance  of  the  old  Congress  it  was  declared  that 
the  boundaries  of  the  contemplated  States,  and  the 
terms  of  their  admission,  should  be,  in  certain  particu- 
lars specified  in  the  ordinance,  subject  to  the  control  of 


LOUISIANA  AS  A  STATE.  207 

Congress.  Now,  as  by  the  new  Constitution  the  old 
Congress  was  about  to  be  annihilated,  it  was  absolutely 
necessary  for  the  very  fulfilment  of  this  ordinance  that 
the  new  Constitution  should  have  this  power  for  the 
admission  of  new  States  within  the  ancient  limits;  so 
that  the  ordinance  of  the  old  Congress,  far  from  show- 
ing the  inutility  of  such  a  provision  for  the  Territories 
within  the  ancient  limits,  expressly  proves  the  reverse, 
and  is  an  evidence  of  its  necessity  to  effect  the  object  of 
the  ordinance  itself. 

I  think  there  can  be  no  more  satisfactory  evidence 
adduced  or  required  of  the  first  part  of  the  position,  — 
that  the  terms  "  new  States  "  did  intend  new  political 
sovereignties  within  the  limits  of  the  old  United  States. 
For  it  is  here  shown  that  the  creation  of  such  States, 
within  the  territorial  limits  fixed  by  the  treaty  of  1783, 
had  been  contemplated ;  that  the  old  Congress  itself 
expressly  asserts  that  the  new  Constitution  gave  the 
power  for  that  object ;  that  the  nature  of  the  old  ordi- 
nance required  such  a  power  for  the  purpose  of  carrying 
its  provisions  into  effect ;  and  that  it  has  been,  from  the 
time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  unto 
this  hour,  applied  exclusively  to  the  admission  of  States 
within  the  limits  of  the  old  United  States,  and  was 
never  attempted  to  be  extended  to  any  other  object. 
Now,  having  shown  a  purpose,  at  the  time  of  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  sufficient 
to  occupy  the  whole  scope  of  the  terms  of  the  article, 
ought  not  the  evidence  to  be  very  strong  to  satisfy  the 
mind  that  the  terms  really  intended  something  else 
besides  this  obvious  purpose  ;  that  it  may  be  fairly 
extended  to  the  entire  circle  of  the  globe,  wherever  title 


SPEECH    ON   THE   ADMISSION    OF 

can  be  obtained  by  purchase  or  conquest,  and  that  new 
partners  in  the  political  power  may  be  admitted,  at  the 
mere  discretion  of  this  legislature,  anywhere  that  it  wills. 
A  principle,  thus  monstrous,  is  asserted  in  this  bill. 

But  I  think  it  may  be  made  satisfactorily  to  appear, 
not  only  that  the  terms,  "  new  States,"  in  this  article, 
did  mean  political  sovereignties  to  be  formed  within  the 
original  limits  of  the  United  States,  as  has  just  been 
shown,  but  also  negatively,  that  it  did  not  intend  new 
political  sovereignties,  with  territorial  annexations,  to 
be  created  without  those  original  limits.  This  appears 
first  from  the  very  tenor  of  the  article.  All  its  limi- 
tations have  respect  to  the  creation  of  States  within 
the  original  limits.  Two  States  shall  not  be  joined  ;  no 
new  State  shall  be  erected  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
any  other  State,  —  without  the  '  consent  of  the  legislat- 
ures of  the  States  concerned  as  well  as  of  Congress. 
Now,  had  foreign  territories  been  contemplated  ;  had 
the  new  habits,  customs,  manners,  and  language  of 
other  nations  been  in  the  idea  of  the  framers  of  this 
Constitution,  —  would  not  some  limitation  have  been 
devised  to  guard  against  the  abuse  of  a  power  in  its 
nature  so  enormous,  and  so  obviously  calculated  to  excite 
just  jealousy  among  the  States,  whose  relative  weight 
would  be  so  essentially  affected  by  such  an  infusion  at 
once  of  a  mass  of  foreigners  into  their  councils  and 
into  all  the  rights  of  the  country  ?  The  want  of  all 
limitation  of  such  power  would  be  a  strong  evidence, 
were  others  wanting,  that  the  powers,  now  about  to  be 
exercised,  never  entered  into  the  imagination  of  those 
thoughtful  and  prescient  men  who  constructed  the 
fabric.  But  there  is  another  most  powerful  argument 


LOUISIANA   AS   A   STATE.  209 

against   the   extension  of  the  terms  of  this  article   to 
embrace  the  right  to  create  States,  without  the  original 
limits  of  the  United  States,  deducible  from  the  utter 
silence  of  all  debates  at  the  period  of  the  adoption  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  touching  the  power  here  pro- 
posed  to   be   usurped.     If   ever   there  was  a  time,  in 
which  the  ingenuity  of  the  greatest  men  of  an  age  was 
taxed  to  find  arguments  in  favor  of  and  against  any 
political  measure,  it  was  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of 
this  Constitution.     All  the  faculties  of  the  human  mind 
were,  on   the  one  side  and  the  other,  put  upon  their 
utmost  stretch,  to  find  the  real  and  imaginary  blessings 
or   evils   likely  to   result  from   the  proposed  measure. 
Now  I  call  upon  the  advocates  of  this  bill  to  point  out, 
in  all  the  debates  of  that  period,  in  any  one  publication, 
in  any  one  pamphlet,  in  any  one  newspaper  of  those 
times,  a  single  intimation,  by  friend  or  foe  to  the  Con- 
stitution, approving  or  censuring  it  for  containing  the 
power  here  proposed  to  be  usurped,  or  a  single  sugges- 
tion that  it  might  be  extended  to  such  an  object  as  is 
now  proposed.     I  do  not  say  that  no  such  suggestion 
was   ever   made.     But   this   I  will   say,  that  I  do  not 
believe   there   is  such  an  one  anywhere  to  be  found. 
Certain  I  am,  I  have  never  been  able  to  meet  the  shadow 
of  such  a  suggestion  ;  and  I  have  made  no  inconsiderable 
research  upon  the  point.     Such  may  exist;  but,  until 
it  be  produced,  we  have  a  right  to  reason  as  though  it 
had  no  existence.     No,  sir,  the  people  of  this  country, 
at  that   day,  had  no  idea  of  the  territorial  avidity  of 
their  successors.     It  was,  on  the  contrary,  an  argument 
used  against  the  success  of  the  project,  that  the  territory 
was  too  extensive  for  a  republican  form  of  government. 

14 


210  SPEECH   ON  THE   ADMISSION   OF 

But  now  there  are  no  limits  to  our  ambitious  hopes. 
We  are  about  to  cross  the  Mississippi.  The  Missouri 
and  Red  River  are  but  roads  on  which  our  imagination 
travels  to  new  lands  and  new  States  to  be  raised  and 
admitted  (under  the  power  now  first  usurped)  into 
this  Union,  among  the  undiscovered  lands  in  the  West. 
But  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  Convention  had 
Canada  in  view  in  this  article,  and  the  gentleman  from 
North  Carolina  told  this  House  that  a  member  of  the 
Convention,  as  I  understood  him,  either  now  or  lately 
a  member  of  the  Senate,  informed  him  that  the  article 
had  that  reference.  Sir,  I  have  no  doubt  the  gentleman 
from  North  Carolina  has  had  a  communication  such  as 
he  intimates.  But,  for  myself,  I  have  no  sort  of  faith 
in  these  convenient  recollections,  suited  to  serve  a  turn, 
to  furnish  an  apology  for  a  party  or  give  color  to  a  proj- 
ect. I  do  not  deny,  on  the  contrary  I  believe  it  very 
probable,  that  among  the  coursings  of  some  discursive 
and  craving  fancy,  such  thoughts  might  be  started ; 
but  that  is  not  the  question.  Was  this  an  avowed 
object  in  the  Convention  when  it  formed  this  article  ? 
Did  it  enter  into  the  conception  of  the  people  when  its 
principles  were  discussed  ?  Sir,  it  did  not ;  it  could  not. 
The  very  intention  would  have  been  a  disgrace  both  to 
this  people  and  the  Convention.  What,  sir  ?  Shall  it  be 
intimated,  shall  it  for  a  moment  be  admitted,  that  the 
noblest  and  purest  band  of  patriots  this  or  any  other 
country  ever  could  boast  were  engaged  in  machinating 
means  for  the  dismemberment  of  the  territories  of  a 
power  to  which  they  had  pledged  friendship,  and  the 
observance  of  all  the  obligations,  which  grow  out  of  a 
strict  and  perfect  amity?  The  honor  of  our  country 
forbids  and  disdains  such  a  suggestion.' 


LOUISIANA  AS   A   STATE.  211 

But  there  is  an  argument  stronger  even  than  all  those 
which  have  been  produced,  to  be  drawn  from  the  nature 
of  the  power  here  proposed  to  be  exercised.  Is  it  possi- 
ble that  such  a  power,  if  it  had  been  intended  to  be  given 
by  the  people,  should  be  left  dependent  upon  the  effect 
of  general  expressions  ?  and  such,  too,  as  were  obviously 
applicable  to  another  subject,  to  a  particular  exigency 
contemplated  at  the  time  ?  Sir,  what  is  this  power  we 
propose  now  to  usurp  ?  Nothing  less  than  a  power 
changing  all  the  proportions  of  the  weight  and  influence 
possessed  by  the  potent  sovereignties  composing  this 
Union.  A  stranger  is  to  be  introduced  to  an  equal 
share  without  their  consent.  Upon  a  principle  pre- 
tended to  be  deduced  from  the  Constitution  this  gov- 
ernment, after  this  bill  passes,  may  and  will  multiply 
foreign  partners  in  power  at  its  own  mere  motion,  at  its 
irresponsible  pleasure  ;  in  other  words,  as  local  interests, 
party  passions,  or  ambitious  views,  may  suggest.  It  is  a 
power  that  from  its  nature  never  could  be  delegated, 
never  was  delegated  ;  and,  as  it  breaks  down  all  the 
proportions  of  power  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  to 
the  States,  upon  which  their  essential  security  depends, 
utterly  annihilates  the  moral  force  of  this  political  con- 
tract. Would  this  people,  so  wisely  vigilant  concerning 
their  rights,  have  transferred  to  Congress  a  power  to 
balance  at  its  will  the  political  weight  of  any  one  State, 
much  more  of  all  the  States,  by  authorizing  it  to  create 
new  States  at  its  pleasure  in  foreign  countries,  not  pre- 
tended to  be  within  the  scope  of  the  Constitution  or 
the  conception  of  the  people  at  the  time  of  passing  it  ? 
This  is  not  so  much  a  question  concerning  the  exercise 
of  sovereignty  as  it  is  who  shall  be  sovereign  ;  whether 


212  SPEECH   ON    THE   ADMISSION    OF 

the  proprietors  of  the  good  old  United  States  shall  man- 
age their  own  affairs  in  their  own  way,  or  whether  they 
and  their  Constitution  and  their  political  rights  shall  be 
trampled  under  foot  by  foreigners,  introduced  through 
a  breach  of  the  Constitution.  The  proportion  of  the 
political  weight  of  each  sovereign  State  constituting 
this  Union  depends  upon  the  number  of  the  States 
which  have  a  voice  under  the  compact.  This  number 
the  Constitution  permits  us  to  multiply  at  pleasure 
within  the  limits  of  the  original  United  States,  observing 
only  the  expressed  limitations  in  the  Constitution.  But 
when,  in  order  to  increase  your  power  of  augmenting 
this  number,  you  pass  the  old  limits,  you  are  guilty  of  a 
violation  of  the  Constitution  in  a  fundamental  point, 
and  in  one  also  which  is  totally  inconsistent  with  the 
intent  of  the  contract  arid  the  safety  of  the  States 
which  established  the  association.  What  is  the  practi- 
cal difference  to  the  old  partners  whether  they  hold 
their  liberties  at  the  will  of  a  master,  or  whether,  by 
.admitting  exterior  States  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States,  arbiters  are  constituted,  who,  by  avail- 
ing themselves  of  the  contrariety  of  interests  and  vieus 
which  in  such  a  confederacy  necessarily  will  arise,  hold 
the  balance  among  the  parties  which  exist  and  govern 
us  by  throwing  themselves  into  the  scale  most  conform- 
able to  their  purposes  ?  In  both  cases  there  is  an  effec- 
tive despotism.  But  the  last  is  the  more  galling,  as  we 
carry  the  chain  in  the  name  and  with  the  gait  of  free- 
men. 

I  have  thus  shown,  and  whether  fairly  I  am  willing  to 
be  judged  by  the  sound  discretion  of  the  American  peo- 
ple, that  the  power  proposed  to  be  usurped  in  this  bill 


LOUISIANA  AS   A  STATE.  213 

results  neither  from  the  general  nature  nor  the  particu- 
lar provisions  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  that  it  is 
a  palpable  violation  of  it  in  a  fundamental  point,  whence 
flow  all  the  consequences  I  have  intimated. 

But  says  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Rhea), 
"  These  people  have  been  seven  years  citizens  of  the 
United  States."  I  deny  it,  sir.  As  citizens  of  New 
Orleans  or  of  Louisiana  they  never  have  been,  and  by 
the  mode  proposed  they  never  will  be,  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  They  may  be  girt  upon  us  for  a  mo- 
ment, but  no  real  cement  can  grow  from  such  an  asso- 
ciation. What  the  real  situation  of  the  inhabitants  of 
those  foreign  countries  is,  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
show  presently.  But  says  the  same  gentleman,  "  If  I 
have  a  farm,  have  not  I  a  right  to  purchase  another 
farm  in  my  neighborhood,  and  settle  my  sons  upon  it, 
and  in  time  admit  them  to  a  share  in  the  management 
of  my  household?  "  Doubtless,  sir.  But  are  these  cases 
parallel  ?  Are  the  three  branches  of  this  government 
owners  of  this  farm  called  the  United  States  ?  I  desire 
to  thank  heaven  they  are  not.  I  hold  my  life,  liberty, 
and  property,  and  the  people  of  the  State  from  which  I 
have  the  honor  to  be  a  representative  hold  theirs,  by  a 
better  tenure  than  any  this  national  government  can 
give.  Sir,  I  know  your  virtue  ;  and  I  thank  the  Great 
Giver  of  every  good  gift  that  neither  the  gentleman 
from  Tennessee  nor  his  comrades,  nor  any  nor  all  the 
members  of  this  House,  nor  of  the  other  branch  of 
the  legislature,  nor  the  good  gentleman  who  lives  in  the 
palace  yonder,  nor  all  combined,  can  touch  these  my 
essential  rights,  and  those  of  my  friends  and  constitu- 
ents, except  in  a  limited  and  prescribed  form.  No,  sir: 


214  SPEECH    ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF 

we  hold  these  by  the  laws,  customs,  and  principles  of 
the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts.  Behind  her  am- 
ple shield  we  find  refuge  and  feel  safety.  I  beg  gentle- 
men not  to  act  upon  the  principle  that  the  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts  is  their  farm. 

But  the  gentleman  adds,  "  What  shall  we  do  if  we 
do  not  admit  the  people  of  Louisiana  into  our  Union  ? 
Our  children  are  settling  that  country."  Sir,  it  is  no 
concern  of  mine  what  he  does.  Because  his  children 
have  run  wild  and  uncovered  into  the  woods,  is  that  a 
reason  for  him  to  break  into  my  house  or  the  houses  of 
my  friends  to  filch  our  children's  clothes  in  order  to 
cover  his  children's  nakedness  ?  This  Constitution  never 
was  and  never  can  be  strained  to  lap  over  all  the  wilder- 
ness of  the  West  without  essentially  affecting  both  the 
rights  and  convenience  of  its  real  proprietors.  It  was 
never  constructed  to  form  a  covering  for  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Missouri  and  the  Red  River  country ;  and  when- 
ever it  is  attempted  to  be  stretched  over  them  it  will 
rend  asunder.  I  have  done  with  this  part  of  my  argu- 
ment. It  rests  upon  this  fundamental  principle,  that 
the  proportion  of  political  power,  subject  only  to  the 
internal  modifications  permitted  by  the  Constitution,  is 
an  unalienable,  essential,  intangible  right.  When  it  is 
touched,  the  fabric  is  annihilated  ;  for  on  the  preserva- 
tion of  these  proportions  depend  our  rights  and  liber- 
ties. 

If  we  recur  to  the  known  relations  existing  among 
the  States  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  this  Constitu- 
tion, the  same  conclusion  will  result.  The  various  in- 
terests, habits,  manners,  prejudices,  education,  situation, 
and  views,  which  excited  jealousies  and  anxieties  in  the 


LOUISIANA  AS   A   STATE.  215 

breasts  of  some  of  our  most  distinguished  citizens  touch- 
ing the  result  of  the  proposed  Constitution,  were  potent 
obstacles  to  its  adoption.  The  immortal  leader  of  our 
Revolution,  in  his  letter  to  the  President  of  the  old 
Congress,  written  as  President  of  the  Convention  which 
formed  this  compact,  thus  speaks  on  this  subject :  "  It 
is  at  all  times  difficult  to  draw  with  precision  the  line 
between  those  rights  which  must  be  surrendered  and 
those  which  may  be  reserved  ;  and,  on  the  present  occa- 
sion, this  difficulty  was  increased  by  a  difference  among 
the  several  States  as  to  their  situation,  extent,  habits, 
and  particular  interests."  The  debates  of  that  period 
will  show  that  the  effect  of  the  slave  votes  upon  the 
political  influence  of  this  part  of  the  country,  and 
the  anticipated  variation  of  the  weight  of  power  to  the 
West,  were  subjects  of  great  and  just  jealousy  to  some 
of  the  best  patriots  in  the  Northern  and  Eastern  States. 
Suppose,  then,  that  it  had  been  distinctly  foreseen  that, 
in  addition  to  the  effect  of  this  weight,  the  whole  popu- 
lation of  a  world  beyond  the  Mississippi  was  to  be 
brought  into  this  and  the  other  branch  of  the  legis- 
lature to  form  our  laws,  control  our  rights,  and  decide 
our  destiny.  Sir,  can  it  be  pretended  that  the  patriots 
of  that  day  would  for  one  moment  have  listened  to  it? 
They  were  not  madmen.  They  had  not  taken  degrees 
at  the  hospital  of  idiocy.  They  knew  the  nature  of 
man,  and  the  effect  of  his  combinations  in  political 
societies.  They  knew  that  when  the  weight  of  par- 
ticular sections  of  a  confederacy  was  greatly  unequal, 
the  resulting  power  would  be  abused  ;  that  it  was  not 
in  the  nature  of  man  to  exercise  it  with  moderation. 
The  very  extravagance  of  the  intended  use  is  a  conclu- 


216  SPEECH   ON    THE    ADMISSION    OF 

sive  evidence  against  the  possibility  of  the  grant  of  such 
a  power  as  is  here  proposed.  Why,  sir,  I  have  already 
heard  of  six  States,  and  some  say  there  will  be  at  no 
great  distance  of  time  more.  I  have  also  heard  that 
the  mouth  of  the  Ohio  will  be  far  to  the  east  of  the  cen- 
tre of  the  contemplated  empire.  If  the  bill  is  passed, 
the  principle  is  recognized.  All  the  rest  are  mere  ques- 
tions of  expediency.  It  is  impossible  such  a  power 
could  be  granted.  It  was  not  for  these  men  that  our 
fathers  fought.  It  was  not  for  them  this  Constitution 
was  adopted.  You  have  no  authority  to  throw  the 
rights  and  liberties  and  property  of  this  people  into 
"  hotch-pot  "  with  the  wild  men  on  the  Missouri,  nor 
with  the  mixed,  though  more  respectable,  race  of  Anglo- 
Hispano-Gallo-Americans  who  bask  on  the  sands  in  the 
mouth  of  the  Mississippi.  I  make  no  objection  to  these 
from  their  want  of  moral  qualities  or  political  light. 
The  inhabitants  of  New  Orleans  are,  I  suppose,  like 
those  of  all  other  countries,  —  some  good,  some  bad, 
some  indifferent. 

As  then  the  power  in  this  bill  proposed  to  be  usurped 
is  neither  to  be  drawn  from  the  general  nature  of  the 
instrument  nor  from  the  clause  just  examined,  it  follows 
that,  if  it  exist  anywhere,  it  must  result  from  the  treaty- 
making  power.  This  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee 
(Mr.  Rhea)  asserts,  but  the  gentleman  from  North 
Carolina  (Mr.  Macon)  denies,  and  very  justly ;  for 
what  a  monstrous  position  is  this,  that  the  treaty-making 
power  has  the  competency  to  change  the  fundamental 
relations  of  the  Constitution  itself !  that  a  power  under 
the  Constitution  should  have  the  ability  to  change  and 
annihilate  the  instrument  from  which  it  derives  all  its 


LOUISIANA  AS   A   STATE.  217 

power !  and  if  the  treaty-making  power  can  introduce 
new  partners  to  the  political  rights  of  the  States,  there 
is  no  length,  however  extravagant  or  inconsistent  with 
the  end,  to  which  it  may  not  be  wrested.  The  present 
President  of  the  United  States,  when  a  member  of  the 
Virginia  Convention  for  adopting  the  Constitution, 
expressly  declares  that  the  treaty-making  power  has 
limitations ;  and  he  states  this  as  one,  "  that  it  cannot 
alienate  any  essential  right."  Now  is  not  here  an 
essential  right  to  be  alienated  ?  —  the  right  to  that  pro- 
portion of  political  power  which  the  Constitution  has 
secured  to  every  State,  modified  only  by  such  internal 
increase  of  States  as  the  existing  limits  of  the  territories 
at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  per- 
mitted. The  debates  of  that  period  chiefly  turned  upon 
the  competency  of  this  power  "to  bargain  away  any  of 
the  old  States.  It  was  agreed,  at  that  time,  that  by 
this  power  old  States,  within  the  ancient  limits,  could 
not  be  sold  from  us ;  and  I  maintain  that  by  it  new 
States,  without  the  ancient  limits,  cannot  be  saddled 
upon  us.  It  was  agreed,  at  that  time,  that  the  treaty- 
making  power  "  could  not  cut  off  a  limb  ;•"  and  I  main- 
tain that  neither  has  it  the  competency  to  clap  a  hump 
upon  our  shoulders.  The  fair  proportions  devised  by 
the  Constitution  are  in  both  cases  marred,  and  the  fate 
and  felicity  of  the  political  being,  in  material  particulars 
related  "to  the  essence  of  his  constitution,  affected.  It 
was  never  pretended,  by  the  most  enthusiastic  advocates 
for  the  extent  of  the  treaty-making  power,  that  it 
exceeded  that  of  the  king  of  Great  Britain.  Yet  I  ask, 
suppose  that  monarch  should  make  a  treaty  stipulating 
that  Hanover  or  Hindostan  should  have  a  right  of 


218  SPEECH    ON   THE   ADMISSION    OF 

representation  on  the  floor  of  Parliament,  would  such 
a  treaty  be  binding  ?  No,  sir ;  not,  as  I  believe,  if  a 
House  of  Commons  arid  of  Lords  could  be  found  venal 
enough  to  agree  to  it.  But  although,  in  that  country, 
the  three  branches  of  its  legislature  are  called  omnipo- 
tent, and  the  people  might  not  deem  themselves  justified 
in  resistance,  yet  here  there  is  no  apology  of  this  kind. 
The  limits  of  our  power  are  distinctly  marked ;  and, 
when  the  three  branches  of  this  government  usurp  upon 
this  Constitution  in  particulars  vital  to  the  liberties  of 
this  people,  the  deed  is  at  their  peril. 

I  have  done  with  the  constitutional  argument. 
Whether  I  have  been  able  to  convince  any  member  of 
this  House,  I  am  ignorant :  I  had  almost  said  indiffer- 
ent ;  but  this  I  will  not  say,  because  I  am  indeed  deeply 
anxious  to  prevent  the  passage  of  this  bill.  Of  this  I 
am  certain,  however,  that  when  the  dissensions  of  this 
day  are  passed  away  ;  when  party  spirit  shall  no  longer 
prevent  the  people  of  the  United  States  from  look- 
ing at  the  principle  assumed  in  it,  independent  of 
gross  and  deceptive  attachments  and  antipathies,  —  the 
ground  here  defended  will  be  acknowledged  as  a  high 
constitutional  bulwark,  and  that  the  principles  here 
advanced  will  be  appreciated. 

I  will  add  one  word  touching  the  situation  of  New 
Orleans.  The  provision  of  the  treaty  of  1803  which 
stipulates  that  it  shall  be  "  admitted  as  soon  as  possible  " 
does  not  therefore  imply  a  violation  of  the  Constitution. 
There  are  ways  in  which  this  may  constitutionally  be 
effected,  —  by  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution,  or  by 
reference  to  Conventions  of  the  people  in  the  States. 
And  I  do  suppose  that,  in  relation  to  the  objects  of  the 


LOUISIANA  AS   A   STATE.  219 

present  bill  (the  people  of  New  Orleans),  no  great  diffi- 
culty would  arise.  Considered  as  an  important  accom- 
modation to  the  Western  States,  there  would  be  no 
violent  objection  to  the  measure.  But  this  would  not 
answer  all  the  projects  to  which  the  principle  of  this 
bill,  when  once  admitted,  leads,  and  is  intended  to  be 
applied.  The  Avhole  extent  of  Louisiana  is  to  be  cut  up 
into  independent  States,  to  counterbalance  and  to  par- 
alyze whatever  there  is  of  influence  in  other  quarters 
of  the  Union,  —  such  a  power  I  am  well  aware  that  the 
people  of  the  States  would  never  grant  you.  And 
therefore,  if  you  get  it,  the  only  way  is  by  the  mode 
adopted  in  this  bill,  —  by  usurpation. 

The  objection  here  urged  is  not  a  new  one.  I  refer 
with  great  delicacy  to  the  course  pursued  by  any  mem- 
ber of  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature  ;  yet  I  have 
it,  from  such  authority  that  I  have  an  entire  belief  of 
the  fact,  that  our  present  minister  in  Russia,*  then  a 
member  of  that  body  when  the  Louisiana  treaty  was 
under  the  consideration  of  the  Senate,  although  he  was 
in  favor  of  the  treaty,  yet  expressed  great  doubts,  on 
the  ground  of  constitutionality,  in  relation  to  our  con- 
trol over  the  destinies  of  that  people,  and  the  manner 
and  the  principles  on  which  they  could  be  admitted 
into  the  Union.  And  it  does  appear  that  he  made  two 
several  motions  in  that  body,  having  for  their  object, 
as  avowed  and  as  gathered  from  their  nature,  an  alter- 
ation in  the  Constitution  to  enable  us  to  comply  with 
the  stipulations  of  that  Convention. 

I  will  add  only  a  few  words,  in  relation  to  the  moral 

*  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams. 


220  SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF 

and  political  consequences  of  usurping  this  power.  I 
have  said  that  it  would  be  a  virtual  dissolution  of  the 
Union ;  and  gentlemen  express  great  sensibility  at  the 
expression.  But  the  true  source  of  terror  is  not  the 
declaration  I  have  made,  but  the  deed  you  propose.  Is 
there  a  moral  principle  of  public  law  better  settled,  or 
more  conformable  to  the  plainest  suggestions  of  reason, 
than  that  the  violation  of  a  contract  by  one  of  the  parties 
may  be  considered  as  exempting  the  other  from  its 
obligations  ?  Suppose,  in  private  life,  thirteen  form  a 
partnership,  and  ten  of  them  undertake  to  admit  a  new 
partner  without  the  concurrence  of  the  other  three, 
would  it  not  be  at  their  option  to  abandon  the  partner- 
ship after  so  palpable  an  infringement  of  their  rights  ? 
How  much  more  in  the  political  partnership,  where  the 
admission  of  new  associates,  without  previous  authority, 
is  so  pregnant  with  obvious  dangers  and  evils !  Again  : 
it  is  settled  as  a  principle  of  morality,  among  writers  on 
public  law,  that  no  person  can  be  obliged  beyond  his 
intent  at  the  time  of  the  contract.  Now  who  believes, 
who  dare  assert,  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  people, 
when  they  adopted  this  Constitution,  to  assign  event- 
ually to  New  Orleans  and  Louisiana  a  portion  of  their 
political  power,  and  to  invest  all  the  people  those 
extensive  regions  might  hereafter  contain  with  an 
authority  over  themselves  and  their  descendants  ? 
When  you  throw  the  weight  of  Louisiana  into  the  scale, 
you  destroy  the  political  equipoise  contemplated  at  the 
time  of  forming  the  contract.  Can  any  man  venture  to 
affirm  that  the  people  did  intend  such  a  comprehension 
as  you  now  by  construction  give  it?  or  can  it  be  con- 
cealed that,  beyond  its  fair  and  acknowledged  intent, 


LOUISIANA   AS   A   STATE.  221 

such  a  compact  has  no  moral  force  ?  If  gentlemen  are 
so  alarmed  at  the  bare  mention  of  the  consequences,  let 
them  abandon  a  measure  which,  sooner  or  later,  will 
produce  them.  How  long  before  the  seeds  of  discontent 
will  ripen  no  man  can  foretell ;  but  it  is  the  part  of 
wisdom  not  to  multiply  or  scatter  them.  Do  you.  sup- 
pose the  people  of  the  Northern  and  Atlantic  States 
will  or  ought  to  look  on  with  patience  and  see  Repre- 
sentatives and  Senators,  from  the  Red  River  and  Mis- 
souri, pouring  themselves  upon  this  and  the  other  floor, 
managing  the  concerns  of  a  sea-board  fifteen  hundred 
miles  at  least  from  their  residence,  and  having  a  pre- 
poridera'ncy  in  councils  into  which,  constitutionally, 
they  could  never  have  been  admitted  ?  I  have  no  hesi- 
tation upon  this  point.  They  neither  will  see  it,  nor 
ought  to  see  it,  with  content.  It  is  the  part  of  a  wise 
man  to  foresee  danger  and  to  hide  himself.  This  great 
usurpation,  which  creeps  into  this  House  under  the 
plausible  appearance  of  giving  content  to  that  important 
point,  New  Orleans,  starts  up  a  gigantic  power  to  control 
the  nation.  Upon  the  actual  condition  of  things,  there 
is,  there  can  be,  no  need  of  concealment.  It  is  apparent 
to  the  blindest  vision.  By  the  course  of  nature  and 
conformable  to  the  acknowledged  principles  of  the  Con- 
stitution, the  sceptre  of  power  in  this  country  is  passing 
towards  the  North-west.  Sir,  there  is  to  this  no  objec- 
tion. The  right  belongs  to  that  quarter  of  the  country  : 
enjoy  it.  It  is  yours.  Use  the  powers  granted,  as  you 
please ;  but  take  care,  in  your  haste  after  effectual 
dominion,  not  to  overload  the  scale  by  heaping  it  with 
these  new  acquisitions.  Grasp  not  too  eagerly  at  your 
purpose.  In  your  speed  after  uncontrolled  sway, 


222  SPEECH   ON    THE   ADMISSION   OF 

trample  not  down  this  Constitution.  Already  the  old 
States  sink  in  the  estimation  of  members,  when  brought 
into  comparison  with  these  new  countries.  We  have 
been  told  that  "  New  Orleans  was  the  most  important 
point  in  the  Union."  A  place,  out  of  the  Union,  the 
most  important  place  within  it !  We  have  been  asked 
"  what  are  some  of  the  small  States,  when  compared 
with  the  Mississippi  Territory  ?  "  The  gentleman  from 
that  territory  (Mr.  Poindexter)  spoke  the  other  day  of 
the  Mississippi  as  "of  a  high  road  between"'  —  Good 
heavens !  between  what,  Mr.  Speaker  ?  Why,  "  The 
Eastern  and  Western  States."  So  that  all  the  north- 
western territories,  all  the  countries  once  the  extreme 
western  boundary  of  our  Union,  are  hereafter  to  be 
denominated  Eastern  States ! 

[MR.  POINDEXTER  explained.  He  said  that  he  had  not 
said  that  the  Mississippi  was  to  be  the  boundary  between 
the  Eastern  and  Western  States.  He  had  merely 
thrown  out  a  hint  that,  in  erecting  new  States,  it  might 
be  a  good  high  road  between  the  States  on  its  waters. 
His  idea  had  not  extended  beyond  the  new  States  on 
the  waters  of  the  Mississippi.] 

I  make  no  great  point  of  this  matter.  The  gentleman 
will  find  in  the  "  National  Intelligencer  "  the  terms  to 
which  I  refer.  There  will  be  seen,  I  presume,  what  he 
has  said,  and  what  he  has  not  said.  The  argument  is 
not  affected  by  the  explanation.  New  States  are  in- 
tended to  be  formed  beyond  the  Mississippi.  There  is 
no  limit  to  men's  imaginations,  on  this  subject,  short  of 
California  and  Columbia  river.  When  I  said  that  the 
bill  would  justify  a  revolution  and  would  produce  it,  I 
spoke  of  its  principle  and  its  practical  consequences. 


LOUISIANA.   AS   A   STATE.  223 

To  this  principle  and  those  consequences  I  would  call 
the  attention  of  this  House  and  nation.  If  it  be  about 
to  introduce  a  condition  of  things  absolutely  insupport- 
able, it  becomes  wise  and  honest  men  to  anticipate  the 
evil,  and  to  warn  and  prepare  the  people  against  the 
event.  I  have  no  hesitation  on  the  subject.  The 
extension  of  this  principle  to  the  States  contemplated 
beyond  the  Mississippi  cannot,  will  not,  and  ought  not 
to  be  borne.  And  the  sooner  the  people  contemplate 
the  unavoidable  result  the  better,  —  the  more  chance 
that  convulsions  may  be  prevented,  the  more  hope  that 
the  evils  may  be  palliated  or  removed. 

Mr.  Speaker,  what  is  this  liberty  of  which  so  much 
is  said  ?  Is  it  to  walk  about  this  earth,  to  breathe  this 
air,  and  to  partake  the  common  blessings  of  God's  provi- 
dence ?  The  beasts  of  the  field  and  the  birds  of  the  air 
unite  with  us  in  such  privileges  as  these.  But  man 
boasts  a  purer  and  more  ethereal  temperature.  His 
mind  grasps  in  its  view  the  past  and  future,  as  well  as 
the  present.  We  live  not  for  ourselves  alone.  That 
which  we  call  liberty  is  that  principle  on  which  the 
essential  security  of  our  political  condition  depends.  It 
results  from  the  limitations  of  our  political  system  pre- 
scribed in  the  Constitution.  These  limitations,  so  long 
as  they  are  faithfully  observed,  maintain  order,  peace, 
and  safety.  When  they  are  violated  in  essential  par- 
ticulars, all  the  concurrent  spheres  of  authority  rush 
against  each  other;  and  disorder,  derangement,  and  con- 
vulsion are,  sooner  or  later,  the  necessary  consequences. 

With  respect  to  this  love  of  our  Union,  concerning 
which  so  much  sensibility  is  expressed,  I  have  no  fear 
about  analyzing  its  nature.  There  is  in  it  nothing  of 


224  ADMISSION    OF   LOUISIANA   AS   A   STATE. 

mystery.  It  depends  upon  the  qualities  of  that  Union, 
and  it  results  from  its  effects  upon  our  and  our -country's 
happiness.  It  is  valued  for  "  that  sober  certainty  of 
waking  bliss  "  which  it  enables  us  to  realize.  It  grows 
out  of  the  affections  ;  and  has  not,  and  cannot  be  made 
to  have,  any  thing  universal  in  its  nature.  Sir,  I  con- 
fess it,  the  first  public  love  of  my  heart  is  the  Common- 
wealth of  Massachusetts.  There  is  my  fireside ;  there 
are  the  tombs  of  my  ancestors. 

"  Low  lies  that  land,  yet  blest  with  fruitful  stores, 
Strong  are  her  sons,  though  rocky  are  her  shores  ; 
And  none,  ah  !  none,  so  lovely  to  my  sight, 
Of  all  the  lands  which  heaven  o'erspreads  with  light." 

The  love  of  this  Union  grows  out  of  this  attachment 
to  my  native  soil,  and  is  rooted  in  it.  I  cherish  it, 
because  it  affords  the  best  external  hope  of  her  peace, 
her  prosperity,  her  independence.  I  oppose  this  bill 
from  no  animosity  to  the  people  of  New  Orleans,  but 
from  the  deep  conviction  that  it  contains  a  principle 
incompatible  with  the  liberties  and  safety  of  my  country. 
I  have  no  concealment  of  my  opinion.  The  bill,  if  it 
passes,  is  a  death-blow  to  the  Constitution.  It  may 
afterwards  linger  ;  but  lingering,  its  fate  will,  at  no  very 
distant  period,  be  consummated. 


SPEECH 

ON    THE    INFLUENCE    OF    PLACE    AND 
PATRONAGE. 

JAN.  30,  1811. 


15 


SPEECH 

ON    THE     INFLUENCE    OF    PLACE     AND    PATRONAGE. 
JAN.  30,  1811. 


[THE  following  speech  was  one  of  the  earliest  protests  in  our 
history  against  the  abuse  of  making  the  offices  under  government 
a  fund  for  buying  political  support.  The  Marcy  heresy,  that 
"  to  the  victors  belong  the  spoils,"  had  not  yet  been  broached ; 
and  compared  with  the  flood  of  corruption,  the  gates  of  which 
were  opened  under  the  disgraceful  administration  of  General 
Jackson,  and  which  have  not  yet  been  closed,  the  stream  which 
flowed  from  the  White  House  sixty  years  since  was  but  a  rill. 
But  little  things  seemed  great  in  those  days  of  small  things,  and 
Mr.  Quincy  was  moved  to  utter  the  following  words  of  admoni- 
tion and  reproof,  as  a  relief  to  his  own  mind  rather  than  with 
any  sanguine  hope  of  effecting  a  reformation.  Though  its 
assaults  and  its  innuendoes  could  not  have  been  well-pleasing  to 
the  supporters  of  the  administration,  it  was  listened  to  with 
apparent  good-humor,  and  its  hits  met  with  abundant  laughter. 
Mr.  Macon,  of  North  Carolina,  having  moved  that  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  be  submitted  to  the  people,  providing 
that  no  Senator  or  Representative  should  be  appointed  to  any 
office  under  government  until  the  presidential  term  under  which 
he  had  served  as  such  should  have  expired,  Mr.  Quincy  moved 
as  an  amendment  that  "  no  person  standing  to  any  Senator  or 
Representative  in  the  relation  of  father,  brother,  or  son,  by  blood 
or  marriage,  shall  be  appointed  to  any  civil  office  under  the 
United  States,  or  shall  receive  any  place,  agency,  contract,  or 


228  SPEECH   ON   PLACE   AND    PATRONAGE. 

emolument  from  or  under  any  department  or  officer  thereof." 
After  his  speech  was  finished,  Mr.  Wright,  of  Maryland,  moved, 
by  way  of  reductio  ad  absurdum,  that  "  every  Senator  and  Repre- 
sentative, on  taking  his  seat,  should  furnish  a  table  of  his 
genealogy,"  which  he  afterwards  modified,  on  the  suggestion 
that  a  Senator  or  Representative  might  marry,  and  thus  change 
his  connections,  so  as  to  read,  "  Each  member  of  the  Senate  and 
House,  when  he  takes  his  seat,  shall  file  a  list  of  his  relatives 
precluded  by  said  resolution."  It  need  hardly  be  told  that  not 
only  the  amendments  but  the  Self-denying  Ordinance  itself  failed 
of  the  necessary  majority.  This  speech  was  well  approved  by 
the  Federalists,  and  Mr.  Quincy  received  many  assurances  of 
approval  of  it.  President  John  Adams  wrote  him  a  letter 
couched  in  terms  of  admiration,  which  even  filial  piety  cannot 
regard  as  otherwise  than  excessive,  not  to  say  hyperbolical.  He 
writes,  "  I  owe  you  thanks  for  your  speech  on  Place  and  Patron- 
age ;  the  moral  and  patriotic  sentiments  are  noble  and  exalted, 
the  eloquence  masterly,  and  the  satire  inimitable.  There  are 
not  in  Juvenal  nor  in  Swift  any  images  more  exquisitely  ridicu- 
lous."—ED.] 

ME.  CHAIRMAN,  —  The  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  North  Carolina  is 
of  the  nature  of  a  remedy  for  an  evil.  The  proposition 
which  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  is  similar  in  principle, 
but  embraces  a  wider  sphere  of  action,  and  is  offered  as 
a  medicament  of  a  higher  power.  His  amendment  has 
for  its  object  to  purify  the  legislature  of  that  corruption 
which  springs  from  the  hope  of  office  for  ourselves. 
My  proposition  has  for  its  object  to  purify  the  legislature 
of  that  corruption  which  springs  from  the  attainment 
of  office  for  our  relations ;  and  if  the  House  will  take 
the  trouble  to  analyze  the  respective  natures  of  these 
two  evils,  it  will  find  that  the  evil  to  which  my  proposi- 
tion refers  is  higher  in  nature  and  more  intense  in 


SPEECH   ON   PLACE   AND   PATRONAGE.  229 

degree  than  that  to  which  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  North  Carolina  has  reference  ;  that  is  to  say, 
the  present  attainment  of  office  for  our  relations,  for 
those  near  and  dear  to  us,  who  are  parts  of  our  blood, 
and,  if  our  natures  be  generous,  parts  of  ourselves, 
is  an  application  to  the  principle  of  human  action,  as 
much  more  strong  and  alluring  than  the  distant  hope  of 
office  for  ourselves,  as  fruition  is  a  nearer  approximation 
to  bliss  than  expectation,  or  as  payment  in  hand  is 
better  than  payment  in  promise. 

I  shall  offer  a  few  considerations  in  support  of  my 
proposition,  not  only  by  way  of  elucidation  to  this 
House,  but  also  for  the  purpose  of  attracting  the  atten- 
tion of  the  public  to  the  subject ;  for  I  am  well  aware 
that,  let  it  be  discussed  when  it  will,  and  under  what 
administration  it  will,  it  cannot  fail  to  be  in  this  and  the 
other  branch  of  the  legislature  a  bitter  pill ;  and,  unless 
it  have  the  aid  of  external  pressure,  it  will  stick  in  the 
passage. 

I  know  the  nature  of  the  subject,  and  am  aware  that 
it  is  very  delicate  and  very  critical.  Why,  sir,  it  relates 
to  nothing  less  than  our  blood  and  our  purses,  —  objects, 
of  all  others,  the  most  squeamishly  sensitive,  and  the 
most  jealous  of  other  people's  interference.  It  shall  be 
my  endeavor,  however,  to  handle  the  topic  with  as  much 
caution  as  possible  ;  and,  in  order  to  avoid  all  appearance 
of  party  or  personality,  I  shall  speak  concerning  things 
past  and  things  future,  without  particular  notice  of 
things  present. 

In  the  first  place,  I  would  remark  that  our  general 
mode  of  speaking,  both  on  this  floor  and  in  common 
conversation,  concerning  this  power  of  distributing 


230  SPEECH    ON   PLACE    AND   PATRONAGE. 

offices,  is,  in  my  judgment,  not  strictly  accurate  in  itself, 
and  may  be  questioned  as  unjust  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  denominated  executive  influence  ; 
by  way  of  analogy  and  in  conformity  perhaps  to  the 
practice  in  Great  Britain,  where  the  Crown,  being 
proprietor  of  offices,  distributes  them  at  will  among 
favorites.  But  the  state  of  things  is  different  in  this 
country.  Here  the  executive  has  no  proprietary  interest 
in  the  offices  which  he  distributes.  He  does  not  create 
them ;  he  does  not,  except  in  a  few  instances,  even 
designate  the  amount  of  emolument.  All  these,  in  fact, 
proceed  from  the  legislature.  We  are  the  creators  ;  he 
is  the  channel  for  communicating  them  to  their  objects : 
so  that  if  the  members  of  this  and  the  other  branch  of 
the  legislature  become  venal  in  this  country,  they  are, 
to  say  the  least,  half  workers  in  their  own  corruption. 
A  mode  of  expression  ought  not,  therefore,  to  be  used 
tending  to  throw  the  guilt  exclusively  on  another  branch 
of  the  government.  Another  phrase  is  more  just  and 
appropriate.  Sir,  it  ought  to  be  called  pecuniary  influ- 
ence,—  the  love  of  money  wrapped  up  in  very  thin 
covers  and  disguises,  called  offices  for  ourselves  and 
offices  for  our  relations. 

I  shall  consider  the  principle  of  this  amendment  and 
proposition  in  relation  to  the  Constitution,  its  nature 
and  necessity. 

If  we  look  into  the  Constitution,  we  shall  find  no  part 
more  palpably  defective  than  its  provision  against  the 
effects  of  that  executive  influence,  as  it  is  called,  resulting 
from  the  power  of  distributing  offices  at  pleasure  among 
the  members  of  both  branches  of  the  legislature  and  their 
relations.  There  is,  I  think,  but  one  provision  upon  the 


SPEECH   ON   PLACE   AND    PATRONAGE.  231 

subject.  This  is  contained  in  the  following  clause  of  the 
last  paragraph  of  the  sixth  section  of  the  first  article : 
"  No  senator  or  representative  shall,  during  the  time  for 
which  he  was  elected,  be  appointed  to  any  civil  office 
under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  which  shall 
have  been  created,  or  the  emoluments  whereof  shall 
have  been  increased,  during  such  time."  This  provision, 
I  say,  considered  as  a  security  against  that  corruption 
which  springs  from  the  distribution  of  offices,  is  palpably 
defective.  In  relation  to  its  objects  it  is  limited,  and  in 
its  means  wants  efficiency.  What  are  its  objects  ?  It 
aims  only  to  prevent  multiplication  of  offices  and  in- 
crease of  their  emolument ;  so  that,  provided  we  do  not 
create  new  offices,  nor  increase  the  old  emolument,  the 
craving  spirit  of  avarice  has  free  range  to  solicit  and 
corrupt  both  branches  of  the  legislature.  All  the 
numerous  allurements  of  existing  offices,  all  the  rich 
reward  of  established  salaries,  are  permitted  to  play 
their  bewitching  fascinations  before  our  eyes.  So  long 
as  a  man  does  not  attempt  to  take  the  fruit  of  seed  of 
his  own  sowing,  he  may  botanize  at  his  pleasure  in  this 
great  executive  garden  ;  and  whether  he  seek  flower  or 
fruit  he  may,  to  the  full,  please  his  fancy  or  satiate  his 
appetite.  And  if  we  consider  the  means,  it  will  be 
found  that  they  are  inadequate.  There  is  but  one 
limitation  ..."  during  the  time  for  which  he  was 
elected."  What  is  this,  considered  as  security?  It  is 
scarcely  less  than  totally  inefficient.  Notwithstanding 
this  provision  a  man  may, —  I  say  may,  Mr.  Chairman,  for 
I  would  not  be  understood  to  affirm  that  any  such  creat- 
ure now  exists,  or  has  ever  heretofore  appeared  in  this 
or  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature  ;  but  I  speak  of 


232     SPEECH  ON  PLACE  AND  PATRONAGE. 

the  possibility  of  that  gross  and  debasing  corruption, 
such  as  has  appeared  in  other  countries,  and  may,  there- 
fore, hereafter  appear  in  this,  —  a  man  maybe  a  mere 
spaniel  to  the  executive :  he  may  fetch  and  carry,  run 
upon  all  his  errands,  and,  at  his  whistle,  roll  himself 
over  on  these  floors,  without  regard  to  either  coat  or 
conscience  ;  and  on  the  last  day  of  the  term  for  which 
he  was  elected,  when,  perhaps,  he  has  been  ejected  from 
the  people's  favor  as  foul  and  odious,  he  may,  in  spite  of 
this  provision,  be  instrumental  in  creating  an  office,  or 
increasing  an  emolument,  of  which  the  very  next  day  he 
shall  take  the  profits.  Is  not  such  a  provision,  consid- 
ered as  a  security  against  corruption  from  the  distribu- 
tion of  offices,  like  tantalism  to  this  people  ?  I  would 
not,  however,  be  thought  to  hold  at  a  mean  rate  this 
part  of  our  Constitution.  Notwithstanding  its  defi- 
ciency, it  is  precious ;  because  it  recognizes  the  possi- 
bility of  the  existence  of  this  principle  of  corruption  in 
this  and  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature  ;  because  it 
is  a  standing  and  a  solemn  warning  against  its  effects. 
It  gives  us  ground  to  stand  upon,  and,'  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  the  power  of  amendment,  may  enable 
this  people  to  wrench  out  of  this  soil  by  the  roots  this 
foul  and  growing  pollution. 

If  we  compare  the  principle  of  this  amendment  and 
my  proposition  with  the  principles  of  the  Constitution, 
we  shall  find  that  it  no  less  harmonizes  with  them  than 
it  does  with  this  provision  of  the  instrument.  If  there 
be  a  principle  universally  allowed  by  men  of  all  parties 
to  be  the  basis  of  liberty,  with  the  existence  of  which 
it  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  the  essence  of  freedom 
is  identified,  it  is,  that  the  three  great  departments  of 


SPEECH   ON  PLACE  AND   PATEONAGE.  233 

power  —  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  —  ought 
to  be  separate  and  distinct.  The  consolidation  of  these 
three  powers  into  one  has  been  denominated  "  the  defini- 
tion of  despotism  ;  "  and  in  proportion  as  these  powers 
approximate  to  consolidation,  the  spirit  of  despotism 
steals  over  us.  At  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  this 
instrument,  it  was  an  objection  raised  against  it  by  some 
of  its  most  enlightened  opposers,  that  its  tendency  was 
to  such  a  consolidation,  and  on  this  account  they  strove 
to  rouse  the  spirit  of  liberty ;  but  their  anticipations 
had  chiefly  reference  to  the  forms  of  the  Constitution, 
and  particularly  to  that  qualified  control  which  the 
executive  has  over  the  acts  of  the  legislature.  They 
anticipated  not  at  all,  or  at  least  very  obscurely,  that 
consolidation  which  has  grown  and  is  strengthening 
under  the  influence  of  the  office-distributing  power 
vested  in  the  executive  :  a  consolidation  perceptible  to 
all,  and  which  is  the  more  fixed  and  inseparable,  inas- 
much as  the  cement  is  constituted  of  the  strongest  of 
all  amalgams,  —  that  of  the  precious  metals.  This  state 
of  things  is  not  the  less  to  be  deprecated,  on  account  of 
the  fact  that  the  forms  of  the  Constitution  are  preserved 
while  its  spirit  is  perishing.  The  members  of  both 
branches  may  meet,  deliberate,  and  act,  but  the  spirit 
of  independence  is  gone  whenever  the  action  of  the 
legislature  is  identified  with  the  will  of  the  executive 
by  the  potent  influence  of  the  office-hoping  and  the 
office-holding  charm. 

With  respect  to  the  nature  of  this  influence,  I  re- 
mark that  a  misconception  seems  to  be  entertained 
concerning  it.  The  bare  suggestion  of  its  existence  is 
almost  thought  to  be  indecorous,  because  of  the  gross 


234  SPEECH   ON   PLACE   AND  PATEONAGE. 

and  palpable  corruption  in  which  it  is  supposed  to  con- 
sist. It  is  thought  to  imply  a  sort  of  precontract  be- 
tween the  executive  and  his  selected  favorites,  —  so 
many  votes  for  so  many  offices,  or  such  an  office  for 
such  a  term  of  Swiss  service.  Sir,  nothing  of  this  kind 
is  pretended.  Such  sale  of  conscience  and  duty  in  open 
market  is  not  reconcilable  with  the  present  state  of  civ- 
ilized society.  And  they  are  mightily  offended  if  there 
be  any  suggestion,  ever  so  remote,  of  pollution,  or  any 
hint  that  they  have  been  about  any  thing  else,  in  their 
transactions  with  the  executive,  than  pursuing  the  pure 
love  of  glory  and  their  country.  But  the  corruption  of 
which  I  speak,  and  which  is  the  object  of  both  the 
amendment  and  proposition,  is  of  a  nature  neither  very 
gross  nor  very  barefaced.  Yet  on  these  accounts  it  is 
not  the  less  to  be  deprecated.  On  the  contrary,  from 
its  very  insidiousness  and  its  appearing  so  often  almost 
in  the  garb  of  a  virtue  ought  it  to  be  watched  and  re- 
stricted. 

Such  is  its  nature  that  it  corrupts  the  very  fountain 
of  action.  It  springs  up  out  of  the  human  heart  and 
the  condition  of  things,  so  that  it  is  almost  impossible 
that  it  should  not  exist,  or  that  it  should  be  altogether 
resisted.  It  has  its  origin  in  that  love  of  place  which  is 
so  inherent  in  the  human  heart  that  it  may  be  called 
almost  an  universal  and  instinctive  passion.  It  cannot 
be  otherwise  ;  for  so  long  as  the  love  of  honor  and  the 
love  of  profit  are  natural  to  man,  so  long  the  love  of 
place,  which  includes  either  the  one  or  the  other  or 
both,  must  be  a  very  general  and  prevalent  impulse. 
It  cannot,  therefore,  but  be  true  as  a  general  principle, 
and  it  casts  no  reflection  to  admit  that  all  members 


SPEECH  ON  PLACE   AND   PATEONAGE.  235 

of  Congress  may  love  offices  at  least  as  well  as  their 
neighbors.  Now,  with  the  love  of  place  there  is  another 
principle  concurrent  in  relation  to  members  of  Congress, 
which  is  the  result  of  our  political  condition,  and  is  this  : 
that  those  most  desirous  of  places  in  the  executive  gift 
will  not  expect  to  be  gratified  except  through  their  sup- 
port of  the  executive.  In  referring  to  this  principle  as 
the  result  of  our  political  condition,  I  mean  to  cast  no 
particular  reflection  on  our  present  chief  magistrate.  It 
grows  out  of  the  nature  of  political  combinations.  But, 
with  some  highly  honorable  exceptions,  it  has  been  true 
in  all  past,  and  will  be  true  in  all  future  administrations, 
that  the  general  way  for  members  of  Congress  to  gain 
offices  for  themselves  or  their  relations  is  to  coincide  in 
opinion,  and  vote  with  the  executive.  Out  of  the  union 
of  these  two  principles,  the  love  of  office  and  the  gen- 
eral impression  that  coincidence  with  the  executive  is 
an  essential  condition  for  obtaining  office,  grows  that 
corruption  of  the  very  fountain  of  action,  the  purifica- 
tion of  which  is  the  aim  of  both  the  amendment  and 
my  proposition  under  consideration.  It  exists  without 
any  precontract  with  the  executive.  He  knows  our 
wants.,  without  any  formal  specification  from  us ;  and  we 
know  his  terms,  without  any  previous  statement  from 
him.  The  parties  proceed  together,  mutually  gratifying 
and  gratified  as  occasions  offer,  and  the  harmonies  of  the 
happy  part  of  the  legislature  and  of  the  executive  are 
complete  ;  and  were  it  not  that  there  is  a  third  party 
concerned,  called  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
nothing  would  seem  more  pleasant  or  unexceptionable 
than  this  partnership  in  official  felicity.  But  so  it  is, 
in  truth,  that  the  interests  and  liberties  of  the  peo- 


236  SPEECH    ON   PLACE   AND    PATRONAGE. 

pie,  which  we  are  sent  here  to  consult,  will  not  only 
be  sometimes  neglected,  but  at  others  absolutely  sacri- 
ficed, while  the  constituted  guardians  are  gaping  after 
offices  for  themselves,  or  hunting  them  up  for  their  rela- 
tions. The  nature  of  the  corruption  is  such  as  not  only 
easily  to  be  concealed  from  the  world,  but  also  in  a 
great  measure  from  the  individual  himself.  And  so 
long  as  that  free  access,  which  is  at  present  permitted 
by  the  Constitution,  is  unrestrained,  it  will  continue, 
and  may  increase.  On  every  question  which  arises  and 
has  relation  to  executive  measures,  in  addition  to  all  the 
other  considerations  of  honor,  policy,  justice,  propriety, 
and  the  like,  this  also  is  prepared  to  be  thrown  into  the 
scale,  —  that  if  a  man  means  to  gain  office  he  must  coin- 
cide with  the  executive.  It  is  not  possible  for  any  man 
to  decide  what  degree  of  influence  this  consideration 
has  upon  another,  and  it  is  nearly,  if  not  quite,  as  diffi- 
cult for  him  to  decide  what  degree  of  influence  it  may 
have  upon  himself.  For  let  any  man  reflect  upon  the 
springs  of  any  particular  course  of  action,  which  vari- 
ous, concurrent,  complex  motives  have  induced  him  to 
adopt,  and  he  will  find  it  very  difficult  to  apportion  to 
each  of  the  concurring  motives  the  precise  degree  of 
influence  which  belongs  to  it.  And  he  will  also  find 
that,  if  there  be  in  the  group  one  motive  base,  and  con- 
sequently bashful  of  the  light,  it  will  shrink  away  into 
the  deepest  recesses  of  the  heart,  and  there  cover  itself 
over  with  such  an  accumulation  of  plausible,  specious 
motives,  that  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  poor  human  nat- 
ure, in  the  ordinary  strength  of  its  moral  sense,  always 
to  discover  it.  From  the  liability  of  having  the  source 
of  our  public  actions  corrupted  by  the  infusion  of  such 


SPEECH   ON  PLACE   AND   PATRONAGE.  237 

a  taint,  every  honest  mind  will  be  solicitous  to  be  deliv- 
ered ;  for,  whether  the  office  which  allures  our  fancy  be 
for  ourselves  or  for  our  relatives,  the  result  is  the  same. 
No  man  can  stand  up  wholly  independent  of  the  hand 
by  which  he  hopes  to  be  fed,  or  which  is  in  the  act  of 
feeding  his  children  and  relatives.  Nor  can  any  man, 
however  honest  or  scrupulous,  placed  in  such  situa- 
tion, be  positively  certain  as  to  his  own  motive,  or  know 
whether  in  such  cases  his  polarity  with  the  executive 
be  the  result  of  the  intrinsic  nature  and  reason  of  things, 
or  whether  it  be  the  effect  of  the  influence  "of  those 
metallic  strata  which  unite  that  executive  with  the 
centre  of  his  best  affections. 

With  respect  to  the  degree  in  which  this  corruption 
has  heretofore  or  may  hereafter  exist,  it  is  impossible 
precisely  to  estimate  ;  because  the  offices  in  the  gift  of 
the  executive  and  the  departments  are  so  numerous,  are 
extended  over  so  wide  a  surface,  —  being  for  the  whole 
United  States,  —  and  the  relations  of  members  of  Con- 
gress are  so  little  known  to  each  other  and  the  world,  that 
it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  we,  much  less  that  the  people, 
should  be  able  to  trace  this  influence  in  all  its  ramifica- 
tions. But  one  thing  is  certain,  that  it  exceeds  popular 
estimation  as  much  as  it  evades  legislative  scrutiny. 
Why,  sir,  there  is  annually  distributed  from  the  great 
departments  an  amount  not  less  than  five  and  a  half 
millions  of  dollars,  and  from  the  post-office  establish- 
ment not  less  than  four  and  a  half  millions,  making  the 
annual  aggregate  of  ten  millions  of  dollars.  All  this 
abundant  reservoir  is  distributable  annually  to  its  objects, 
in  streams  of  various  magnitudes  and  in  every  direction, 
at  the  executive  will.  Now,  we  stand  at  the  very  spot 


238  SPEECH   ON   PLACE  AND   PATEONAGE. 

when  this  luscious  fountain  overflows  in  all  its  exuber- 
ance. Having  the  power,  can  we  promise  that  we  shall 
refrain  from  turning  aside  to  ourselves  and  our  relatives 
at  least  a  full  portion  of  these  pecuniary  bounties  ?  Is 
it  in  human  nature  generally  to  practise  so  much  stoical 
self-denial  as  a  contrary  conduct  would  imply  ?  I  have 
said  that  it  was  impossible  to  prove  the  full  extent  of 
the  accommodation  which  we  and  our  relatives  may 
obtain  in  one  shape  and  another  out  of  the  treasury,  so 
long  as  such  a  latitude  is  given  to  our  capacity  to  re- 
ceive ;  yet,  every  now  and  then,  some  evidence  occurs 
tending  to  give  a  glimpse  of  the  amount  in  which  the 
transfer  of  public  money  may  be  made  to  run  in  partic- 
ular directions.  At  this  moment  there  lies  upon  our 
tables  an  account  of  the  navy  agent  at  Baltimore,  who, 
as  it  appears,  under  the  directions  of  the  then  Secretary 
of  the  Navy,  did  purchase,  in  about  eighteen  months,  of 
a  single  mercantile  house  in  that  city,  bills  of  exchange  to 
the  amount  of  two  hundred  and  forty  thousand  dollars, 
the  head  of  which  mercantile  house  was  and  is  a  senator 
of  the  United  States,  and  the  brother  of  that  Secretary 
of  the  Navy.  In  referring  to  this  subject,  I  beg  to  be 
understood  as  giving  no  opinion  on  that  transaction,  or 
as  representing  it  as  exceptionable  in  its  nature.  I 
adduce  it  with  no  other  design  than  to  show  the  extent 
to  which  relations  may,  if  they  please,  accommodate  one 
another,  so  long  as  no  constitutional  restrictions  exist, 
and  the  impossibility  of  estimating  the  amount  and  of 
pursuing  the  evil  into  all  its  ramifications. 

Upon  this  subject  of  offices,  my  sentiments  ma}r,  per- 
haps, be  too  refined  for  the  present  condition  of  human 
nature.  And  I  am  aware,  in  what  I  am  about  to  say, 


SPEECH  ON  PLACE  AND  PATRONAGE.      239 

that  I  may  run  athwart  political  friends  as  well  as 
political  foes.  Such  considerations  as  these  shall  not, 
however,  deter  me  from  introducing  just  and  high  no- 
tions of  their  duties  to  the  consideration  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature.  I  hold,  sir,  the  acceptance  of 
an  office  of  mere  emolument,  or  which  is  principally 
emolument,  by  a  member  of  Congress,  from  the  execu- 
tive, as  unworthy  his  station,  and  incompatible  with 
that  high  sense  of  irreproachable  character  which  it  is 
one  of  the  choicest  terrestrial  boons  of  virtue  to  attain. 
For  while  the  attainment  of  office  is  to  members  of  Con- 
gress the  consequence,  solely,  of  coincidence  with  the 
executive,  he  who  has  the  office  carries  on  his  forehead 
the  mark  of  having  fulfilled  the  condition.  And,  al- 
though his  self-love  may  denominate  his  attainment  of 
the  office  to  be  the  reward  of  merit,  the  world,  which 
usually  judges  acutely  on  these  matters,  will  denomi- 
nate it  the  reward  of  service.  And  in  such  cases, 
ninety-nine  times  in  the  hundred,  the  world  will  be 
right.  An  exception  to  this  rule  may,  perhaps,  exist  in 
the  cases  of  offices  of  high  responsibility,  to  which  a 
member  of  Congress  may  be  called,  on  account  of  distin- 
guished and  peculiar  qualifications ;  in  which  the  voice 
of  the  executive  is,  in  truth,  what  it  ought  always  to  be, 
the  voice  of  his  country.  Such  cases  are  so  rare  that, 
when  they  exist,  they  make  a  law  for  themselves.  They 
are  exceptions  which  prove,  rather  than  invalidate,  the 
rule.  For  us,  it  is  honor  enough  to  be  thus  intrusted 
with  the  high  concerns  of  this  people  ;  to  be  thus  debat- 
ing ;  thus  maintaining  their  liberties,  or  striving  to 
improve  their  condition.  Let  us  put  it  out  of  our  power, 
and  remove  from  us  the  temptation,  to  grub  in  the  low 
pursuits  of  avarice  and  base  ambition . 


240  SPEECH   ON   PLACE   AND   PATRONAGE. 

Such  is  the  opinion  which,  in  my  judgment,  ought  to 
be  entertained  of  the  mere  acceptance  of  office  by  mem- 
bers of  Congress.  But  as  to  that  other  class  of  persons, 
who  are  open,  notorious  solicitors  of  office,  they  give 
occasion  to  reflections  of  a  very  different  nature.  This 
class  of  persons,  in  all  times  past,  have  appeared,  and 
(for  I  say  nothing  of  times  present),  in  all  times  future, 
will  appear,  on  this  and  the  other  floor  of  Congress,  — 
creatures  who,  under  pretence  of  serving  the  people, 
are  in  fact  serving  themselves,  —  creatures  who,  while 
their  distant  constituents,  good  easy  men,  industrious, 
frugal,  and  unsuspicious,  dream  in  visions  that  they  are 
laboring  for  their  country's  welfare,  are  in  truth  spend- 
ing their  time  mousing  at  the  doors  of  the  palace  or 
the  crannies  of  the  departments,  and  laying  low  snares 
to  catch,  for  themselves  and  their  relations,  every  stray 
office  that  flits  by  them.  For  such  men,  chosen  into 
this  high  and  responsible  trust,  to  whom  have  been  con- 
fided the  precious  destinies  of  this  people,  and  who  thus 
openly  abandon  their  duties,  and  set  their  places  and 
their  consciences  to  sale,  in  defiance  of  the  multiplied 
strong  and  tender  ties  by  which  they  are  bound  to  their 
country,  I  have  no  language  to  express  my  contempt. 
I  never  have  seen,  and  I  never  shall  see,  any  of  these 
notorious  solicitors  of  office  for  themselves  or  their  rela- 
tions, standing  on  this  or  the  other  floor,  bawling  and 
bullying,  or  coming  down  with  dead  votes  in  support  of 
executive  measures,  but  I  think  I  see  a  hackney,  labor- 
ing for  hire  in  a  most  degrading  service,  —  a  poor 
earth-spirited  animal,  trudging  in  his  traces,  with  much 
attrition  of  the  sides  and  induration  of  the  membranes, 
encouraged  by  this  special  certainty,  that,  at  the  end  of 


SPEECH  ON  PLACE  AND  PATRONAGE.      241 

his  journey,  he  shall  have  measured  out  to  him  his  pro- 
portion of  provender. 

But  I  have  heard  that  the  bare  suggestion  of  such 
corruption  was  a  libel  upon  this  House,  and  upon  this 
people.  I  have  heard  that  we  were,  in  this  country,  so 
virtuous  that  we.  were  above  the  influence  of  these 
allurements ;  that  beyond  the  Atlantic,  in  old  govern- 
ments, such  things  might  be  suspected,  but  that  here  we 
were  too  pure  for  such  guilt,  too  innocent  for  such  sus- 
picions. Mr.  Chairman,  I  shall  not  hesitate,  in  spite  of 
such  popular  declamation,  to  believe  and  follow  the  evi- 
dence of  my  senses  and  the  concurrent  testimonies  of 
contemporaneous  beholders.  I  shall  not,  in  my  estima- 
tion of  character,  degrade  this  people  below,  nor  exalt 
them  far  above,  the  ordinary  condition  of  cultivated 
humanity.  And  of  this  be  assured,  that  every  system 
of  conduct,  or  course  of  policy,  which  has  for  its  basis 
an  excess  of  virtue  in  this  country  beyond  what  human 
nature  exhibits  in  its  improved  state  elsewhere,  will  be 
found,  on  trial,  fallacious.  Is  there  on  this  earth  any 
collection  of  men  in  which  exists  a  more  intrinsic,  hearty, 
and  desperate  love  of  office  or  place,  particularly  of  fat 
places  ?  Is  there  any  country  more  infested  than  this 
with  the  vermin  that  breed  in  the  corruptions  of  power  ? 
Is  there  any  in  which  place  and  official  emolument  more 
certainly  follow  distinguished  servility  at  elections,  or 
base  scurrility  in  the  press  ?  And  as  to  eagerness  for 
the  reward,  what  is  the  fact?  Let,  now,  one  of  your 
great  office-holders,  a  collector  of  the  customs,  a  mar- 
shal, a  commissioner  of  loans,  a  postmaster  in  one  of 
your  cities,  or  any  officer,  agent,  or  factor  for  your  ter- 
ritories or  public  lands,  or  person  holding  a  place  of 

16 


242  SPEECH   ON  PLACE  AND   PATRONAGE. 

minor  distinction,  but  of  considerable  profit,  be  called 
upon  to  pay  the  last  great  debt  of  nature.  The  poor 
man  shall  hardly  be  dead,  he  shall  not  be  cold,  long 
before  the  corpse  is  in  the  coffin,  the  mail  shall  be 
crowded,  to  repletion,  with  letters  and  certificates,  and 
recommendations  and  representations,  and  every  species 
of  sturdy,  sycophantic  solicitation,  by  which  obtrusive 
mendicity  seeks  charity  or  invites  compassion.  Why, 
sir,  we  hear  the  clamor  of  the  craving  animals,  at  the 
treasury  trough,  here  in  this  capital.  Such  running, 
such  jostling,  such  wriggling,  such  clambering  over  one 
another's  backs,  such  squealing  because  the  tub  is  so 
narrow  and  the  company  so  crowded  !  No,  sir,  let  us 
not  talk  of  stoical  apathy  towards  the  things  of  the 
national  treasury,  either  in  this  people  or  in  their  Rep- 
resentatives or  Senators. 

But  it  will  be  asked,  for  it  has  been  asked,  Shall  the 
executive  be  suspected  of  corrupting  the  national  legis- 
lature ?  Is  he  not  virtuous  ?  Without  making  personal 
distinctions  or  references,  for  the  sake  of  argument  it 
may  be  admitted  that  all  executives  for  the  time  being 
are  virtuous,  —  reasonably  virtuous,  Mr.  Chairman,  — 
flesh  and  blood  notwithstanding.  And  without  meaning, 
in  this  place,  to  cast  any  particular  reflections  upon  this 
or  upon  any  other  executive,  this  I  will  say,  that  if  no 
additional  guards  are  provided,  and  now  after  the  spirit 
of  party  has  brought  into  so  full  activity  the  spirit  of 
patronage,  there  never  will  be  a  President  of  these 
United  States,  elected  by  means  now  in  use,  who,  if  he 
deals  honestly  with  himself,  will  not  be  able,  on  quitting, 
to  address  his  presidential  chair  as  John  Falstaff  ad- 
dressed Prince  Hal:  "Before  I  knew  thee,  I  knew 


SPEECH   ON  PLACE  AND   PATRONAGE.  243 

nothing,  and  now  I  am  but  little  better  than  one  of 
the  wicked."  The  possession  of  that  station,  under  the 
reign  of  party,  will  make  a  man  so  acquainted  with  the 
corrupt  principles  of  human  conduct,  he  will  behold  our 
nature  in  so  hungry  and  shivering  and  craving  a  state, 
and  be  compelled  so  constantly  to  observe  the  solid 
rewards  daily  demanded  by  way  of  compensation  for 
outrageous  patriotism,  that,  if  he  escape  out  of  that 
atmosphere  without  partaking  of  its  corruption,  he 
must  be  below  or  above  the  ordinary  condition  of  mor- 
tal nature.  Is  it  possible,  sir,  that  he  should  remain 
altogether  uninfected  ?  What  is  the  fact  ?  The  Con- 
stitution prohibits  the  members  of  this  and  of  the  other 
branch  of  the  legislature  from  being  electors  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States.  Yet  what  is  done? 
The  practice  of  late .  is  so  prevalent  as  to  have  grown 
almost  into  a  sanctioned  usage  party.  Prior  to  the  presi- 
dential term  of  four  years,  members  of  Congress,  having 
received  the  privileged  ticket  of  admission,  assemble 
themselves,  in  a  sort  of  electoral  college,  on  the  floor  of 
the  Senate  or  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  They 
select  a  candidate  for  the  presidency.  To  their  voice, 
to  their  influence,  he  is  indebted  for  his  elevation.  So 
long  as  this  condition  of  things  continues,  what  ordinary 
executive  will  refuse  to  accommodate  those  who,  in  so 
distinguished  a  manner,  have  accommodated  him  ?  Is 
there  a  better  reason,  in  the  world,  why  a  man  should 
give  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  an  office  worth  two  or  three 
thousand  dollars  a  year,  for  which  you  are  qualified, 
and  which  he  could  give  as  well  as  not,  than  this,  that 
you  had  been  greatly  instrumental  in  giving  him  one, 
worth  five  and  twenty  thousand,  for  which  he  was 


244  SPEECH  ON   PLACE  AND  PATRONAGE. 

equally  qualified  ?  It  is  in  vain  to  conceal  it.  So  long 
as  the  present  condition  of  things  continues,  it  may  rea- 
sonably be  expected  that  there  shall  take  place  regularly, 
between  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  a  por- 
tion of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  an  interchange,  strictly 
speaking,  of  good  offices. 

The  principle  for  which  I  contend,  and  which  is  the 
basis  both  of  the  original  amendment  and  of  my  prop- 
osition, is  this :  Put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  executive 
to  seem  to  pay  any  of  the  members  of  Congress,  by 
putting  it  out  of  their  power  to  receive.  "  Avoid  the  ap- 
pearance of  evil."  We  have  been  taught  to  pray,  "  Lead 
us  not  into  temptation."  They  who  rightly  estimate 
their  duties  may  find  in  public  life  no  less  necessity 
than  in  private  life  frequently  to  repeat  this  aspiration. 


SPEECH 


ON  THE  PROPOSITION  TO  REVIVE  AND  ENFORCE 
THE  NON-INTERCOURSE  LAW  AGAINST  GREAT 
BRITAIN. 

FEB.  25,  1811. 


SPEECH 

ON    THE    PROPOSITION  TO    REVIVE  AND  ENFORCE    THE 
NON-INTERCOURSE  LAW  AGAINST  GREAT  BRITAIN. 

FEB.  25,  1811. 


[THE  non-intercourse  with  England  and  France  which  had 
been  enacted  at  the  time  of  the  repeal  of  the  embargo,  expired 
by  its  own  limitation  in  May,  1810.  It  was  then  enacted  that 
in  case  either  of  the  belligerent  powers  should  revoke  their  acts 
hostile  to  American  neutrality,  the  fact  should  be  announced  by 
proclamation,  and,  unless  the  other  belligerent  should  do  the 
same  within  three  months,  the  non-intercourse  should  revive  as 
to  the  contumacious  nation.  Bonaparte,  professing  to  be  satis- 
fied with  the  act  of  May,  informed  General  Armstrong,  the 
American  minister,  that  he  had  revoked  the  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees,  and  that  the  revocation  would  take  effect  on  the  1st  of 
November,  provided  England  did  the  same  by  her  Orders  in 
Council.  Mr.  Madison,  in  his  eagerness  to  escape  from  the 
political  perplexities  in  which  he  was  involved,  issued  his  procla- 
mation on  the  2d  of  November,  declaring  the  non-intercourse 
at  an  end,  without  waiting  to  see  whether  England  would  or 
would  not  revoke  her  Orders  in  Council,  which  was  the  condi- 
tion precedent  of  Bonaparte's  revocation  of  his  decrees.  It  so 
happened  that  England  would  do  nothing  of  the  kind,  so  that 
Mr.  Madison  had  the  mortification  of  informing  the  nation  of 
this  fact  by  proclamation  of  the  date  of  Feb.  2,  1811.  As 
there  was  some  doubt  as  to  whether  non-intercourse  with  Eng- 
land could  be  legally  revived  under  the  law  of  May,  inasmuch 
as  the  proclamation  of  November  had  been  issued  without  wait- 


248  SPEECH  ON 

ing  for  the  action  of  England  in  the  premises,  it  was  thought 
best  to  re-enact  non-intercourse  as  to  her.  It  was  on  this  bill  that 
Mr.  Quincy  made  the  following  speech.  Bonaparte,  it  may 
be  well  to  say,  had  not  merely  seized  and  confiscated  all  the 
American  ships  and  cargoes  he  could  lay  his  hands  on  dur- 
ing the  non-intercourse  of  1809,  but  continued  to  do  so  even 
after  the  President's  proclamation  of  November  had  arrived  in 
France ;  while  he  utterly  refused  to  make  compensation  for  any 
of  his  seizures.  This,  he  vouchsafed  to  explain,  was  merely  done 
to  insure  our  enforcement  of  the  non-intercourse  with  England. 
-  ED.] 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  The  amendments  contained  in  the 
sections  under  consideration  contemplate  the  continu- 
ance and  enforcement  of  the  non-intercourse  law. 
This  proposition  presents  a  great,  an  elevated,  and 
essential  topic  of  discussion,  due  to  the  occasion  and 
claimed  by  this  people,  which  comprehend  within  the 
sphere  and  analogies  of  just  argument  the  chief  of  those 
questions,  the  decision  of  which  at  this  day  involves  the 
peace,  the  happiness,  and  honor  of  this  nation.  What- 
ever has  a  tendency  to  show  that,  if  the  system  of  non- 
intercourse  exist,  it  ought  not  to  be  continued,  or  that,  if 
it  do  not  exist,  it  ought  not  to  be  revived  ;  whatever  has 
a  tendency  to  prove  that  we  are  under  no  obligation  to 
persist  in  it,  or  under  an  obligation  to  abandon  it,  —  is 
now  within  the  fair  range  of  debate. 

After  long  delay  and  much  coy  demeanor,  the  admin- 
istration of  this  country  have  condescended  to  develop 
their  policy.  Though  they  have  not  spoken  to  our 
mortal  ears  with  their  fleshly  tongues,  yet  they  have 
whispered  their  purposes  through  the  constituted  organs 
of  this  House  ;  and  these  are  the  features  of  the  policy 


NON-INTERCOURSE   WITH  ENGLAND.  249 

which  they  recommend :  It  is  proposed  to  grant  partic- 
ular and  individual  relief  from  anticipated  oppressions 
of  the  commercial  restrictive  system  ;  it  is  proposed  to 
perpetuate  that  system  indefinitely,  and  leave  our  citi- 
zens still  longer  subject  to  its  embarrassments,  its  uncer- 
tainty, and  its  terrors.  The  chairman  of  our'  Committee 
of  Foreign  Relations  [Mr.  Eppes],  at  the  time  he  intro- 
duced these  amendments  to  the  House,  exhibited  the 
true  character  of  this  policy,  when  he  told  us  that  it  was 
"  modelled  upon  the  principle  not  to  turn  over  to  the 
judiciary  the  decision  of  the  existence  of  the  non-inter- 
course law,  but  to  make  it  the  subject  of  legislative 
declaration."  In  other  words,  it  is  found  that  the 
majority  of  this  House  have  too  much  policy  to  deny, 
and  too  much  principle  to  assert,  that  the  fact  on  which, 
and  on  which  alone,  the  President  of  the  United  States 
was  authorized  to  issue  his  proclamation  of  the  2d  of 
November  last  has  occurred.  A  scheme  has,  therefore, 
been  devised  by  which,  without  any  embarrassment  on 
this  intricate  point,  the  continuance  and  enforcement  of 
non-intercourse  may  be  insured,  and  toils,  acceptable 
to  France,  woven  by  the  hands  of  our  own  administra- 
tion, spread  over  almost  the  only  remaining  avenue  of 
our  commercial  hope. 

The  proposition  contained  in  these  amendments  has 
relation  to  the  most  momentous  and  most  elevated  of 
our  legislative  obligations.  We  are  not  now  about  to 
discuss  the  policy  by  which  a  princely  pirate  may  be 
persuaded  to  relinquish  his  plunder ;  nor  yet  the  expec- 
tation entertained  of  relaxation  in  her  belligerent  system 
of  a  haughty  and  perhaps  jealous  rival ;  nor  yet  the  faith 
which  we  owe  to  a  treacherous  tyrant ;  nor  yet  the  fond 


250  SPEECH   ON 

but  frail  hopes  of  favors  from  a  British  regency,  melting 
into  our  arms  in  the  honeymoon  of  power.  The  obliga- 
tions which  claim  our  observance  are  of  a  nature  much 
more  tender  and  imperious,  —  the  obligations  which,  as 
representatives,  we  owe  to  our  constituents  ;  the  alle- 
giance by  which  we  are  bound  to  the  American  people  ; 
the  obedience  which  is  due  to  that  solemn  faith  by 
which  we  are  pledged  to  protect  their  peace,  their  pros- 
perity, and  their  honor.  All  these  high  considerations 
are  materially  connected  with  this  policy. 

It  is  not  my  intention,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  dilate  on  the 
general  nature  and  effects  of  this  commercial  restrictive 
system.  It  is  no  longer  a  matter  of  speculation.  'We 
have  no  need  to  resort  for  illustration  of  its  nature  to 
the  twilight  lustre  of  history,  nor  yet  to  the  vibrating 
brightness  of  the  human  intellect.  We  have  experience 
of  its  effects.  They  are  above,  around,  and  beneath  us. 
They  paralyze  the  enterprise  of  your  cities  ;  they  sicken 
the  industry  of  your  fields  ;  they  deprive  the  laborer 
and  the  mechanic  of  his  employment ;  they  subtract 
from .  the  husbandman  and  planter  the  just  reward 
for  that  product  which  he  has  moistened  with  the  sweat 
of  his  brow  ;  they  crush  individuals  in  the  ruins  of  their 
most  flattering  hopes,  and  shake  the  deep-rooted  fabric 
of  general  prosperity. 

It  will,  however,  be  necessary  to  say  a  word  on  the 
general  nature  of  this  system,  not  so  much  for  the  pur- 
pose of  elucidating,  as  to  clear  the  way,  and  give  dis- 
tinctness to  the  course  of  my  argument.  It  will  also  be 
useful  to  deprive  the  advocates  of  this  system  of  those 
colors  and  popular  lures  to  which  they  resort  on  a  sub- 
ject in  no  way  connected  with  the  objects  with  which 
they  associate  it. 


NON-INTERCOURSE  WITH  ENGLAND.  251 

My  argument  proceeds  upon  the  assumption  of  the 
irrelevancy  of  four  topics  usually  adduced  in  support  of 
the  system  contained  in  the  law  of  May,  1810,  and  of 
March,  1809,  commonly  called  the  Non-intercourse  Sys- 
tem. I  take  for  granted  that  it  is  not  advantageous  ;  in 
other  words,  that  it  is  injurious  ;  that  it  is  not  fiscal  in 
its  nature,  nor  protective  of  manufactures,  nor  compe- 
tent to  coerce  either  belligerent.  That  it  is  injurious  is 
certain,  not  only  because  it  is  deprecated  by  that  part  of 
the  community  which  it  directly  affects,  but  because  no 
man  advocates  it  as  a  permanent  system,  and  every  one 
declares  his  desire  to  be  rid  of  it.  Fiscal  it  cannot  be, 
because  it  prohibits  commerce  and  consequently  revenue, 
and,  by  the  high  price  and  great  demand  for  foreign 
articles  which  it  produces,  encourages  smuggling.  Pro- 
tective of  manufactures  it  cannot  be,  because  it  is  indis- 
criminate in  its  provisions  and  uncertain  in  its  duration  ; 
and  this  uncertainty  depends,  not  on  our  legislative  dis- 
cretion, but  on  the  caprice  of  foreign  powers,  —  our 
enemies  or  rivals.  No  commercial  system  which  is  in- 
discriminate in  its  restrictions  can  be  generally  protec- 
tive to  manufactures.  It  may  give  a  forced  vivacity  to 
a  few  particular  manufactures ;  but  in  all  countries 
some,  and  in  this  almost  all,  manufactures  depend  either 
for  instruments  or  materials  on  foreign  supply.  But,  if 
this  were  not  the  case,  a  system  whose  continuance 
depended  upon  the  will  or  the  ever-varying  policy  of 
foreign  nations  can  never  offer  such  an  inducement  to 
the  capitalist  as  will  encourage  him  to  make  extensive 
investments  in  establishments  resting  on  such  precarious 
foundations.  As  to  the  incompetency  of  this  system  to 
coerce  either  belligerent,  I  take  that  for  granted,  because 


252  SPEECH   ON 

no  man,  as  far  as  I  recollect,  ever  pretended  it ;  at  least, 
no  man  ever  did  show,  by  any  analysis  or  detailed 
examination  of  its  relative  effects  on  us  and  either  bel- 
ligerent, that  it  would  necessarily  coerce  either  out  of  that 
policy  which  it  was  proposed  to  counteract.  Embargo 
had  its  friends.  There  were  those  who  had  a  confidence 
in  its  success ;  but  who  was  ever  the  friend  of  non- 
intercourse  ?  Who  ever  pretended  to  believe  in  its 
efficacy  ?  The  embargo  had  a  known  origin,  and  the 
features  of  its  character  were  distinct.  But  "  where 
and  what  was  this  execrable  shape,  if  shape  it  may  be 
called,  which  shape  has  none  ?  "  We  all  know  that  the 
non-intercourse  was  not  the  product  of  any  prospective 
intelligence.  It  was  the  result  of  the  casual  concurrence 
of  chaotic  opinions.  It  was  agreed  upon  because  the 
majority  could  agree  upon  nothing  else.  They  who 
introduced  it  abjured  it ;  they  who  advocated  it  did  not 
wish,  and  scarcely  knew,  its  use.  And  now  that  it  is 
said  to  be  extended  over  us,  no  man  in  this  nation,  who 
values  his  reputation,  will  take  his  Bible  oath  that  it  is 
in  effectual  and  legal  operation.  There  is  an  old  riddle 
on  a  coffin,  which,  I  presume,  we  all  learnt  when  we 
were  boys,  that  is  as  perfect  a  representation  of  the 
origin,  progress,  and  present  state  of  this  thing,  called 
non-intercourse,  as  is  possible  to  be  conceived. 

"  There  was  a  man  bespoke  a  thing, 
Which  when  the  maker  home  did  bring, 
That  same  maker  did  refuse  it ; 
The  man  that  spoke  for  it  did  not  use  it, 
And  he  who  had  it  did  not  know 
Whether  he  had  it,  — yea  or  no." 

True  it  is  that  if  this  non-intercourse  shall  ever  be,  in 
reality,  extended  over  us,  the  similitude  will  fail  in  a 


NON-INTERCOUKSE  WITH  ENGLAND.  253 

material  point.  The  poor  tenant  of  the  coffin  is  igno- 
rant of  his  state ;  but  the  poor  people  of  the  United 
States  will  be  literally  buried  alive  in  non-intercourse, 
and  realize  the  grave  closing  on  themselves  and  their 
hopes  with  a  full  and  cruel  consciousness  of  all  the 
horrors  of  their  condition. 

For  these  reasons  I  put  all  such  commonplace  topics 
out  of  the  field  of  debate.  This,  then,  is  the  state  of 
my  argument,  that  as  this  non-intercourse  system  is  not 
fiscal,  nor  protective  of  manufactures,  nor  competent  to 
coerce,  and  is  injurious,  it  ought  to  be  abandoned,  unless 
we  are  bound  to  persist  in  it  by  imperious  obligations. 
My  object  will  be  to  show  that  no  such  obligations 
exist ;  that  the  present  is  a  favorable  opportunity,  not  to 
be  suffered  to  escape,  totally  to  relinquish  it ;  that  it  is 
time  to  manage  our  own  commercial  concerns  according 
to  our  own  interests,  and  no  longer  put  them  into  the 
keeping  of  those  who  hate  or  those  who  envy  their 
prosperity  ;  that  we  are  the  constituted  shepherds,  and 
ought  no  more  to  transfer  our  custody  to  the  wolves. 

It  is  agreed  on  all  sides  that  it  is  desirable  to  abandon 
this  commercial  restrictive  system ;  but  the  advocates  of 
the  measures  now  proposed  say  that  we  cannot  abandon 
it,  because  our  faith  is  plighted.  Yes,  sir,  our  faith  is 
plighted,  and  that,  too,  to  that  scrupulous  gentleman, 
Napoleon,  a  gentleman  so  distinguished  for  his  own 
regard  of  faith,  for  his  kindness  and  mercies  towards  us, 
for  angelic  whiteness  of  moral  character,  for  overween- 
ing affection  for  the  American  people  and  their  pros- 
perity. Truly,  sir,  it  is  not  to  be  questioned  but  that 
our  faith  should  be  a  perfect  work  towards  this  paragon 
of  purity.  On  account  of  our  faith  plighted  to  him,  it 
is  proposed  to  continue  this  non-intercourse. 


254  SPEECH   ON 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  may  be  allowed,  I  presume,  to 
inquire  whether  any  such  faith  be  plighted.  I  trust  we 
are  yet  freemen.  We  are  not  yet  so  far  sunk  in  servility 
that  we  are  forbidden  to  examine  into  the  grounds  of  our 
national  obligations.  Under  a  belief  that  this  is  per- 
mitted, I  shall  enter  upon  the  task,  and  inquire  whence 
they  arise,  and  what  is  their  nature. 

Whence  they  arise  is  agreed.  Our  obligations  result, 
if  any  exist,  under  the  act  of  May  1,  1810,  called  "  An 
Act  concerning  the  commercial  intercourse  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  and  France  and 
their  dependencies,  and  for  other  purposes."  It  remains, 
therefore,  to  inquire  into  the  character  of  this  act,  and 
the  obligations  arising  under  its  provisions. 

Before,  however,  I  proceed,  I  would  premise  that 
while  I  am  doubtful  whether  I  shall  obtain,  I  am  sure 
that  the  nature  of  my  argument  deserves,  the  favor  and 
prepossession  for  its  success  of  every  member  in  the 
House.  My  object  is  to  show  that  the  obligation  which 
we  owe  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  is  a  free  and 
unrestricted  commerce.  The  object  of  those  who  advo- 
cate these  measures  is  to  show  that  the  obligation  we 
owe  to  Napoleon  Bonaparte  is  a  commerce  restricted 
and  enslaved.  Now,  as  much  as  our  allegiance  is  due 
more  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  than  it  is  to 
Napoleon  Bonaparte,  just  so  much  ought  my  argument 
to  be  received  by  an  American  Congress  with  more 
favor  and  prepossession  than  the  argument  of  those  who 
advocate  these  measures.  It  is  my  intention  to  make 
my  course  of  reasoning  as  precise  and  distinct  as  possi- 
ble, because  I  invite  scrutiny.  I  contend  for  my  country 
according  to  my  conscientious  conceptions  of  its  best 


NON-INTERCOURSE  WITH  ENGLAND.  255 

interests.  If  there  be  fallacy,  detect  it.  My  invitation 
is  given  to  generous  disputants.  As  to  your  stump 
orators,  who  utter  low  invective,  and  mistake  it  for  wit, 
and  gross  personality,  and  pass  it  off  for  argument,  I 
descend  not  to  their  level,  nor  recognize  their  power  to 
injure,  nor  even  to  offend. 

Whatever  obligations  are  incumbent  upon  this  nation 
in  consequence  of  the  act  of  the  1st  of  May,  1810, 
they  result  from  the  following  section:  "And.be  it  fur- 
ther enacted,  That  in  case  either  Great  Britain  or  France 
shall,  before  the  third  day  of  March  next,  so  revoke  or 
modify  her  edicts  as.  that  they  shall  cease  to  violate  the 
neutral  commerce  of  the  United  States,  which  fact  the 
President  of  the  United  States  shall  declare  by  procla- 
mation, and  if  the  other  nation  shall  not  within  three 
months  thereafter  so  revoke  or  modify  her  edicts  in  like 
manner,  then  the  third,  fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  seventh, 
eighth,  ninth,  tenth,  and  eighteenth  sections  of  the  act 
entitled  *  An  Act  to  interdict  the  commercial  intercourse 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  and  France 
and  their  dependencies,  and  for  other  purposes,'  shall, 
from  and  after  the  expiration  of  three  months  from  the 
date  of  the  proclamation  aforesaid,  be  revived  and  have 
full  force  and  effect,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  dominions, 
colonies,  and  dependencies  of  the  nation  thus  refusing 
or  neglecting  to  revoke  or  modify  her  edicts  in  man- 
ner aforesaid.  And  the  restrictions  imposed  by  this 
act  shall,  from  the  date  of  such  proclamation,  cease  and 
be  discontinued  in  relation  to  the  nation  revoking  or 
modifying  her  decrees  in  the  manner  aforesaid." 

Divested  of  technical  expression,  this  is  the  abstract 
form  of  this  section  :  It  provides  that  a  new  commercial 


256  SPEECH    ON 

condition  shall  result  on  the  occurrence  of  a  specified 
fact,  which  fact  the  President  shall  declare.  On  this 
state  of  the  subject,  I  observe  that  nothing  in  the  act 
indicates  whether  the  object  of  the  United  States  in 
providing  for  this  eventual  commercial  condition  was  its 
own  benefit,  convenience,  or  pleasure,  or  whether  it  was 
in  the  nature  of  a  proffer  to  foreign  nations.  It  will, 
however,  be  agreed  on  all  sides  that  the  object  was 
either  the  one  or  the  other.  If  the  object  were  our 
own  benefit,  convenience,  or  pleasure,  it  will  not  be 
pretended  that  we  are  under  any  obligation  to  continue 
the  system  ;  for  that  which  was  adopted  solely  for  either 
of  these  ends  may,  whenever  our  views  concerning  them 
vary,  be  abandoned,  it  being  the  concern  of  no  other. 
But  it  is  said  that  the  act  was,  in  truth,  a  proffer  to  the 
two  belligerents  of  commerce  to  the  obsequious  nation, 
prohibition  of  commerce  to  the  contumacious  nation. 
If  this  were  the  case,  I  shall  agree,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  it  ought  to  be  fulfilled  to  the  full  extent  of 
the  terms.  But,  inasmuch  as  there  is  in  the  terms  of  the 
act  no  indication  of  such  a  proffer,  it  follows  that  its 
nature  must  arise  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
and  that  the  whole  of  the  obligation,  whatever  it  is, 
grows  out  of  an  honorable  understanding,  and  nothing- 
else.  As  such,  I  admit,  it  should  be  honorably  fulfilled. 
The  nature  of  this  proffer  is  that  of  a  proposition  upon 
terms.  Now,  what  I  say  is,  and  it  is  the  foundation  of 
my  argument,  that  whoever  claims  an  honorable  com- 
pliance with  such  a  proposition  must  be  able  to  show 
on  his  part  an  honorable  acceptance  and  fulfilment  of 
the  terms.  The  terms  our  act  proposed  were  an  act  to 
be  done,  an  effect  to  be  produced.  The  act  to  be  done 


NON-INTERCOURSE   WITH   ENGLAND.  257 

was  the  revocation  or  modification  of  the  edicts.  The 
effect  to  be  produced  was,  that  this  revocation  or  modi- 
fication should  be  such  as  that  these  edicts  should  "  cease 
to  violate  our  neutral  commerce."  Now  the  questions 
which  result  are,  Has  the  act  been  done  ?  If  done,  has 
it  been  so  done  as  to  amount  to  an  honorable  fulfilment 
or  acceptance  of  our  terms  ?  The  examination  of  these 
two  points  will  explain  the  real  situation  of  these  United 
States,  and  the  actual  state  of  their  obligations. 

In  considering  the  question  whether  the  fact  of  revo- 
cation or  modification  has  occurred,  it  is  unfortunate 
that  it  does  involve,  at  least  in  popular  estimation,  the 
propriety  of  the  proclamation,  issued  on  the  2d  of  No- 
vember last  by  the  President  of  the  United  States.  I 
regret  as  much  as  any-  one  that  such  is  the  state  of 
things  that  the  question  whether  a  foreign  despot  has 
done  a  particular  act  seems  necessarily  to  be  connected 
with  the  question  concerning  the  prudence  or  perspicac- 
ity with  which  our  own  Chief  Magistrate  has  done  an- 
other act.  I  say  in  popular  estimation  these  subjects 
seem  so  connected.  I  do  not  think  that,  in  the  estima- 
tion of  wise  and  reflecting  men,  they  are  necessarily 
thus  connected  ;  for  the  fact  might  not  have  occurred 
precisely  in  the  form  contemplated  by  the  act  of  May, 
1810  ;  and  yet  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in 
issuing  his  proclamation,  might  be  either  justifiable  or 
excusable.  It  might  be  justifiable.  A  power  intrusted 
to  a  politician,  to  be  used  on  the  occurrence  of  a  partic- 
ular event,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  particular 
end,  he  may  sometimes  be  justifiable  in  using  in  a  case 
which  may  not  be  precisely  that  originally  contemplated. 
It  may  be  effectually,  though  not  formally,  the  same. 

17 


258  SPEECH   ON 

It  may  be  equally  efficient  in  attaining  the  end.  In 
such  case  a  politician  never  will,  and  perhaps  ought  not 
to,  hesitate  at  taking  the  responsibility  which  arises 
from  doing  the  act  in  a  case  not  coming  within  the 
verbal  scope  of  his  authority.  Thus,  in  the  present 
instance,  the  President  of  the  United  States  might 
have  deemed  the  terms,  in  the  letter  of  the  Duke  of 
Cadore,  such  as  gave  a  reasonable  expectation  of  accept- 
ance on  the  part  of  Great  Britain.  He  has  taken  the 
responsibility  ;  he  has  been  deceived.  Neither  Great 
Britain  accepts  the  terms,  nor  France  performs  her  en- 
gagements. The  proclamation  might  thus  have  been 
wise,  though  unfortunate  in  its  result  ;  and  as  to  excuse 
will  it  be  said  that  there  is  nothing  of  the  sort  in  this 
case  ?  Why,  sir,  our  administration  saw  France  by 
Napoleon's  confession,  over  head  and  ears  in  love  with 
the  American  people.  At  such  a  sight  as  this  was  it 
to  be  expected  of  flesh  and  blood  that  they  should  hesi- 
tate to  plunge  into  a  sea  of  bliss,  and  indulge  in  joy 
with  such  an  amorous  cyprian? 

But  whether  the  fact  has  occurred  on  which  alone 
this  proclamation  could  have  legally  issued  is  a  material 
inquiry,  and  cannot  be  evaded,  let  it  reach  where  or 
whom  it  will  ;  for  with  this  is  connected  the  essential 
condition  of  this  country  ;  on  this  depends  the  multi- 
plied rights  of  our  fellow-citizens,  whose  property  has 
been,  or  may  be,  seized  or  confiscated  under  this  law  ; 
and  hence  result  our  obligations,  if  any,  as  is  pretended, 
exist.  It  is  important  here  to  observe  that,  according 
to  the  terms  of  the  act  of  May  1,  1810,  the  law  of 
March  1,  1809,  revives  on  the  occurrence  of  the  fact 
required,  and  not  on  the  proclamation  issued.  If  the 


NON-INTERCOURSE   WITH   ENGLAND.  259 

fact  had  not  occurred,  the  proclamation  is  a  dead  letter, 
and  no  subsequent  performance  of  the  required  fact  by 
either  belligerent  can  retroact  so  as  to  give  validity  to  the 
previous  proclamation.  The  course  required  by  the  act 
of  the  1st  of  May,  1810,  unquestionably  is,  that  the  fact 
required  to  be  done  should  be  precedent,  in  point  of 
time,  to  the  right  accruing  to  issue  the  proclamation  ; 
and  of  consequence  that  by  no  construction  can  any 
subsequent  performance  of  the  fact  required  operate 
backward  to  support  a  proclamation  issued  previous  to 
the  occurrence  of  that  fact.  Whenever  this  fact  is  really 
done,  a  new  proclamation  is  required  to  comply  with  the 
provisions  of  the  act,  and  to  give  efficacy  to  them.  I 
am  the  more  particular,  in  referring  to  this  necessary 
construction  resulting  from  the  terms  of  the  act  of  the 
1st  of  May  last,  because  it  is  very  obvious  that  a  differ- 
ent opinion  did,  until  very  lately,  and  probably  does 
now,  prevail  on  this  floor.  We  all  recollect  what  a 
state  of  depression  the  conduct  of  Bonaparte,  in  seizing 
our  vessels  subsequent  to  the  1st  of  November,  pro- 
duced as  soon  as  it  was  known  in  this  House,  and  what 
a  sudden  joy  was  lighted  up  in  it  when  the  news  of  the 
arrival  of  a  French  minister  was  communicated.  Great 
hopes  were  entertained  and  expressed  that  he  would 
bring  some  formal  revocation  of  his  edicts  or  disavowal 
of  the  seizures,  which  might  retroact  and  support  the 
proclamation.  It  was  confidently  expected  that  some 
explanation,  at  least,  of  these  outrages  would  be  con- 
tained in  his  portmanteau  ;  that,  under  his  powder-puff 
or  in  his  snuff-box,  some  dust  would  be  found  to  throw 
into  the  eyes  of  the  American  people,  which  might  so 
far  blind  the  sense  as  to  induce  them  to  acquiesce  in  the 


260  SPEECH    ON 

enforcement  of  the  non-intercourse,  without  any  very 
scrupulous  scrutiny  into  the.  performance  of  the  condi- 
tions by  Bonaparte.  But,  alas,  sir !  the  minister  is  as 
parsimonious  as  his  master  is  voracious.  He  has  not 
condescended  to  extend  one  particle,  not  one  pinch,  of 
comfort  to  the  administration.  From  any  thing  in  the 
messages  of  our  President,  it  would  not  be  so  much  as 
known  that  such  a  blessed  vision  as  was  this  new  envoy 
had  saluted  his  eyes.  His  communications  preserve  an 
ominous  silence  on  the  topic.  Administration,  after  all 
their  hopes,  have  been  compelled  to  resort  to  the  old 
specific,  and  have  caused  to  be  tipped  up  on  our  tables  a 
cart-load  of  sand,  grit,  and  sawdust,  from  our  meta- 
physical mechanic,  who  see-saws  at  St.  James  as  they 
pull  the  wire  here  in  Washington.  Yes,  sir :  a  letter, 
written  on  the  tenth  day  of  December  last  by  our  min- 
ister in  London,  is  seriously  introduced,  to  prove  by  ab- 
stract reasoning  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  had 
ceased  to  exist  on  the  first  of  the  preceding  November, 
of  whose  existence,  as  late  as  the  25th  of  last  December, 
we  have,  as  far  as  the  nature  of  things  permit,  ocular, 
auricular,  and  tangible  demonstration.  And  the  people 
of  this  country  are  invited  to  believe  the  logic  of  Mr. 
Pinkney,  in  the  face  of  the  fact  of  a  continued  seizure 
of  all  the  vessels  which  came  within  the  grasp  of  the 
French  custom-house,  from  the  1st  of  November  down 
to  the  date  of  our  last  accounts  ;  and  in  defiance  of  the 
declaration  of  our  charge -d'affaires,  made  on  the  10th 
of  December,  that  "  it  will  not  be  pretended  that  the 
decrees  have,  in  fact,  been  revoked  ; "  and  in  utter  dis- 
credit of  the  allegation  of  the  Duke  of  Massa,  made 
on  the  25th  of  the  same  month,  which  in  effect  declares 


NON-INTERCOURSE  WITH   ENGLAND.  261 

* 

the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  exist,  by  declaring  "  that 
they  shall  remain  suspended."  After  such  evidence  as 
this  the  question  whether  a  revocation  or  modification  of 
the  edicts  of  France  has  so  occurred  "  as  that  they  cease 
to  violate  the  neutral  commerce  of  the  United  States  " 
does  no  longer  depend  upon  the  subtleties  of  syllogistic 
skill,  nor  is  to  be  disproved  by  any  power  of  logical 
illation.  It  is  an  affair  of  sense  and  feeling.  And  our 
citizens  —  whose  property  has  been  since  the  1st  of 
November  uniformly  seized,  and  of  which  they  are  avow- 
edly to  be  deprived  three  months,  and  which  is  then 
only  to  be  returned  to  them  on  the  condition  of  good 
behavior  —  may  as  soon  be  made  to  believe  by  the  teach- 
ing philosophy  that  their  rights  are  not  violated,  as  a 
wretch  writhing  under  the  lash  of  the  executioner  might 
be  made  by  a  course  of  reasoning  to  believe  that  the 
natural  state  of  his  flesh  was  not  violated,  and  that  his 
shoulders,  out  of  which  blood  was  flowing  at  every 
stroke,  were  in  the  quiet  enjoyment  of  cuticular  ease. 

Whether  the  revocation  expressed  in  the  letter  of  the 
Duke  of  Cadore  was  absolute  or  conditional,  or  whether 
the  conditions  were  precedent  or  subsequent,  in  the 
present  state  of  our  evidence  it  seems  scarcely  important 
to  inquire.  Yet  the  construction  of  that  celebrated  pas- 
sage in  his  letter  of  the  5th  of  August  has  been,  as  far 
as  I  have  ever  seen,  given  so  much  in  the  manner  of 
lawyers  and  so  little  in  that  of  statesmen,  that  it  deserves 
a  short  elucidation.  All  the  illustration  of  that  letter 
in  the  documents  is  drawn  from  the  form  and  the  force 
of  its  technical  expressions,  —  how  much  the  words,  "  it 
being  understood  that,"  in  their  particular  position,  are 
worth ;  and  whether  they  have  the  effect  of  a  condition 


262  SPEECH    ON 

precedent  or  of  a  condition  subsequent.  A  statesman 
will  look  at  the  terms  contained  in  that  letter  in  a  dif- 
ferent aspect,  —  not  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  how 
much  a  court  of  law  might  be  able  to  make  of  them,  but 
to  discern  in  what  position  of  language  the  writer  in- 
tended to  intrench  himself,  and  to  penetrate  his  real 
policy,  notwithstanding  the  veil  in  which  he  chose  to 
envelop  it.  He  will  consider  the  letter  in  connection 
with  the  general  course  of  French  policy,  and  the  par- 
ticular circumstances  which  produced  it.  By  these 
lights,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  mistake  the  character 
and  true  construction  of  these  expressions.  Upon  recur- 
ring to  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  it  will  be  found 
that  they  contain  a  solemn  pledge  that  "  they  shall  con- 
tinue to  be  vigorously  in  force,  as  long  as  that  (the 
English)  government  does  not  return  to  the  principle  of 
the  law  of  nations."  Their  determination  to  support 
this  pledge  the  French  government  has  uniformly  and 
undeviatingly  declared.  They  have  told  us  constantly 
that  they  required  a  previous  revocation  on  the  part  of 
Great  Britain  as  the  condition  of  their  rescinding  those 
edicts.  The  question,  who  should  first  revoke  their 
edicts,  had  come  to  be,  notoriously,  a  sort  of  point  of 
honor  between  the  two  belligerents.  Perfectly  ac- 
quainted with  this  state  of  things,  we  have  been  perpet- 
ually negotiating  between  the  one  and  the  other,  and 
contending  with  each  that  it  was  his  duty  previously  to 
revoke.  At  length,  the  French  government  —  either 
tired  with  our  solicitations,  or,  more  probably,  seeing 
their  own  advantage  in  our  anxiety  to  get  rid  of  these 
decrees,  which  yet,  as  an  essential  part  of  its  continental 
system  of  total  commercial  exclusion,  it  never  intended 


NON-INTERCOURSE   WITH   ENGLAND.  263 

to  abandon  — -  devised  this  scheme  of  policy,  which  has 
been  the  source  of  so  much  contest,  and  has  puzzled  all 
the  metaphysicians  in  England  and  the  United  States. 
Cadore  is  directed  to  say  to  Mr.  Armstrong,  "  In  this 
new  state  of  things,  I  am  authorized  to  declare  to  you 
sir,  that  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan  are  revoked, 
and  that,  after  the  1st  of  November,  they  will  cease  to 
have  effect ;  it  being  understood  that,  in  consequence  of 
this  declaration,  the  English  shall  revoke  their  Orders  in 
Council,  and  renounce  the  new  principles  of  blockade 
which  they  have  wished  to  establish ;  or  that  the 
United  States,  conformably  to  the  act  you  have  just 
communicated,  shall  cause  their  rights  to  be  respected 
by  the  English."  In  this  curious  gallimaufry  of  time 
present  and  time  future,  of  doing  and  refraining  to  do, 
of  declaration  and  understanding,  of  English  duties  and 
American  duties,  it  is  easy  to  trace  the  design  and  see 
its  adaptation  to  the  past  and  present  policj'  of  the  French 
Emperor.  The  time  present  was  used,  because  the  act 
of  the  United  States  required  that  previously  to  procla- 
mation the  edicts  "  shall  be  "  revoked.  And  this  is  the 
mighty  mystery  of  time  present  being  used  in  express- 
ing an  act  intended  to  be  done  in  time  future.  For  if, 
as  the  order  of  time  and  the  state  of  intention  indicated, 
time  future  had  been  used,  and  the  letter  of  Cadore 
had  said  the  decrees  shall  be  revoked  on  the  1st  of 
November  next,  then  the  proclamation  could  not  be 
issued,  because  the  President  would  be  obliged  to  wait 
to  have  evidence  that  the  act  had  been  effectually  done. 
Now,  as  the  French  Emperor  never  intended  that  it 
should  be  effectuated,  and  yet  meant  to  have  all  the 
advantage  of  an  effectual  deed  without  performing  it, 


264  SPEECH   ON 

this  notable  scheme  was  invented.  And,  by  French 
finesse  and  American  acquiescence,  a  thing  is  considered 
as  effectually  done  if  the  declaration  that  it  is  done  be 
made  in  language  of  time  present,  notwithstanding  the 
time  of  performance  is  in  the  same  breath  declared  to 
be  in  time  future.  Having  thus  secured  the  concur- 
rence of  the  American  administration,  the  next  part  of 
the  scheme  was  so  to  arrange  the  expression  that  either 
the  British  government  should  not  accede,  or,  if  it  did 
accede,  that  it  should  secure  to  France  the  point  of 
honor,  —  a  previous  revocation  bj-  the  British  ;  and,  if 
they  did  not  accede,  that  there  should  be  a  color  for 
seizures  and  sequestrations,  and  thus  still  farther  to 
bind  the  Americans  over  to  their  good  behavior.  All 
this  is  attained  by  this  well-devised  expression,  "  It 
being  understood  that,  in  consequence  of  this  declara- 
tion, the  English  shall  revoke."  Now  Great  Britain 
either  would  accede  to  the  terms,  or  she  would  not. 
If  she  did,  and  did  it,  as  the  terms  required,  in  conse- 
quence of  this  declaration,  then  it  must  be  done  previous 
to  the  1st  of  November,  and  then  the  point  of  honor 
was  saved  to  France ;  so  that  thus  France  by  a  revoca- 
tion verbally  present,  effectually  future,  would  attain 
an  effectual,  previous  revocation  from  the  English. 
But  if,  as  France  expected,  Great  Britain  would  not 
trust  in  such  paper  security,  and  therefore  not  revoke 
previously  to  the  1st  of  November,  then  an  apology 
might  be  found  for  France  to  justify  her  in  refusing  to 
effectuate  that  present,  future,  absolute,  conditional 
revocation.  And  if  ever  the  Duke  of  Cadore  shall  con- 
descend, which,  it  is  probable  he  never  will,  to  reason 
with  our  government  on  the  subject,  he  may  tell  them 


NON-INTERCOUKSE   WITH   ENGLAND.  265 

that  they  knew  that  the  French  Emperor  had  issued 
those  decrees,  upon  the  pledge  that  they  were  to  con- 
tinue until  the  British  abandoned  their  maritime  prin- 
ciples ;  that  he  told  us,  over  and  over  and  over  again, 
that  previous  revocation  by  the  British  was  absolutely 
required :  that  for  the  purpose  of  putting  to  trial  the 
sincerity  of  the  British,  he  had  indeed  declared  that  the 
French  decrees  "  are  revoked "  on  the  first  day  of 
November  ensuing,  but  then  it  was  on  the  expressed 
condition  that  in  consequence  of  that  declaration,  —  not 
of  the  revocation,  but  of  that  declaration,  —  the  British 
were  to  revoke,  and,  if  they  did  not,  the  "  understand- 
ing "was  not  realized,  and  his  rights  of  enforcing  his 
system  remained  to  him.  And  I  confess  I  do  not  well 
see  what  answer  can  be  made  to  such  an  argument. 
Let  us  examine  the  case  in  common  life.  You,  Mr. 
Speaker,  have  two  separate  tracts  of  land,  each  lying 
behind  the  farms  of  A  and  B,  so  that  you  cannot  get 
to  one  of  the  tracts  without  going  over  the  farm  of  A, 
nor  to  the  other  tract  without  going  over  the  farm  of  B. 
For  some  cause  or  other,  both  A  and  B  have  a  mutual 
interest  that  you  should  enjoy  the  right  of  passage  to 
your  tract  over  the  farm  of  each  respectively.  A  and 
B  get  into  quarrels  and  wish  to  involve  you  in  the  dis- 
pute. You  keep  aloof,  but  are  perpetually  negotiating 
with  each  for  your  old  right  of  passage-way,  and  telling 
each  that  it  is  owing  to  him  that  the  other  prohibits 
your  enjoyment  of  it.  At  last  A  says,  "  Come.  We 
will  put  this  B  to  trial.  I,  on  this  fifth  day  of  August, 
declare  my  prohibitions  of  passage-way  are  revoked, 
and  after  the  first  day  of  November  my  prohibitions 
shall  cease  to  have  effect;  but  it  is  understood  that  B, 


266  SPEECH    ON 

in  consequence  of  this  declaration,  shall  also  revoke  his 
prohibition  of  passage-way."  If  B  refuses,  does  A, 
under  the  circumstances  of  such  a  declaration,  violate 
any  obligation  should  he  refuse  to  permit  the  passage  ? 
Might  not  A  urge,  with  great  color  and  force  of  argu- 
ment, that  this  arrangement  was  the  effect  of  your 
solicitation  and  assurance  that  B  would  be  tempted 
by  such  a  proffer,  and  that  the  revocation  of  B  was  re- 
quired, by  the  terms,  to  be  the  consequence  of  A's  decla- 
ration, for  the  veiy  purpose  of  indicating  that  it  must 
be  anterior  to  the  fact  of  A's  effectual  revocation.  But, 
let  this  be  as  it  will,  suppose  that  you,  on  the  1st  of 
November,  in  consequence  of  A's  assurances,  had  sent 
your  servants  and  teams  to  bring  home  your  products, 
and  A  should  seize  your  oxen  and  teams  and  products, 
and  drive  your  servants,  after  having  stripped  them, 
from  his  farm,  and  should  tell  you  that  he  should  keep 
this,  and  all  other  property  of  yours  on  which  he  can 
lay  his  hands,  for  three  months,  and  then  he  should 
restore  it  to  you  or  not  as  he  saw  fit,  according  to  his 
opinion  of  your  good  behavior,  —  I  ask  if,  in  any  sense, 
you  could  truly  say  that  on  the  first  day  of  November 
the  prohibitions  or  edicts  of  A  were  so  revoked  that 
they  ceased  to  violate  your  liberty  of  passage.  Sir, 
when  viewed  in  relation  to  common  life,  the  idea  is 
so  absurd  that  it  would  be  absolutely  insulting  to  ask 
the  question.  I  refer  the  decision  of  so  simple  a  case 
to  the  sound  sense  of  the  American  people,  and  not  to 
that  of  'scurvy  politicians,  who  seem  to  see  the  things 
they  do  not.'  In  a  condensed  form  my  argument  is  this. 
From  a  revocation  merely  verbal,  no  obligations  result. 
By  the  terms  of  our  act  the  revocation  must  be  effectual, 


NON-INTERCOUKSE  WITH   ENGLAND.  267 

"  so  as  the  edict  shall  cease  to  violate  our  rights."  Now 
the  simple  question  is,  whether  an  uniform  seizure,  since 
the  1st  of  November,  under  those  edicts  (for  none  other 
are  pretended)  of  all  their  property,  and  holding  it  for 
three  months  to  see  how  they  will  behave,  be  or.  be 
not  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  American  people. 
In  relation  to  the  revival  by  a  formal  declaration  of  the 
non-intercourse  system,  as  is  proposed  in  one  of  these 
sections,  I  offer  this  argument.  Either  the  fact  on 
which  the  President's  proclamation  could  alone  have 
been  issued  has  occurred,  or  it  has  not.  If  it  have 
occurred,  then  the  law  of  March,  1809,  is  revived,  and 
this  provision  for  its  revival  by  a  declarative  law  is 
unnecessary.  If  it  have  not  occurred,  then  there  is  no 
obligation  to  revive  it,  for  alone  on  the  occurrence  of 
the  specified  fact  does  our  obligation  depend.  In  such 
case  the  revival  by  declaration  is  a  mere  gratuity  to 
Napoleon.  This  is,  in  fact,  the  true  character  of  the 
law.  As  to  the  provisions  for  relief  of  our  merchants 
against  anticipated  seizure,  I  hold  them  scarcely  deserv- 
ing consideration.  Heaven  be  praised !  we  have  inde- 
pendent tribunals  and  intelligent  juries.  Our  judges 
are  not  corrupt,  and  our  yeomanry  will  not  be  swayed, 
in  their  decisions,  by  the  hope  of  presidential  favors, 
nor  be  guided  by  party  influence.  The  harpies  of  }rour 
custom-house  dare  as  soon  eat  off  their  own  claws,  as 
thrust  them  in  the  present  state  of  the  law  of  March, 
1809,  into  the  fatness  of  their  fellow-citizens.  The 
timorous  and  light-shunning  herd  of  spies  and  informers 
have  too  much  instinct  to  pounce  on  such  a  prey. 

But,  in  order  to  cause  any  obligation  to  result  under 
the  law  of  May  1,  1810,  it  is  necessary,  not  only  that 


268  SPEECH   ON 

the  fact  required  be  done,  and  the  effect  required  pro- 
duced, but  also  the  terms  of  that  act  must  be  accepted. 
The  proffer  we  made,  if  such  be  the  character  of  that 
act,  was  only  to  revive  the  non-intercourse  law  against 
the*  contumacious  belligerent,  after  three  months  had 
expired  from  the  date  of  the  proclamation.  Now  it  is 
remarkable  that,  so  far  from  accepting  the  terms  of  the 
proposition  contained  in  our  act  as  the  extent  of  our 
obligations,  Bonaparte  expressly  tells  us  that  he  under- 
stands that  they  mean  something  else  ;  and  something, 
too,  that  no  man  in  this  House  will  dare  to  aver  they 
really  intend.  It  is  also  remarkable  that  the  terms  of 
this  celebrated  letter  from  the  Duke  of  Cadore,  of  the 
5th  of  August,  which  have  been  represented  as  a  relax- 
ation in  the  rigor  of  the  French  Emperor's  policy,  are  in 
fact  something  worse  than  the  original  terms  of  the 
Milan  decree,  and  that,  instead  of  having  obtained  a 
boon  from  a  friend  in  this  boasted  letter,  our  adminis- 
tration have  only  caught  a  gripe  from  a  Tartar.  By  the 
terms  of  the  Milan  decree,  it  was  to  "  cease  with  respect 
to  all  nations  who  compelled  the  English  to  respect  their 
flag."  By  the  terms  of  the  letter  of  Cadore,  it  was  to 
cease  on  condition  that  the  United  States  "  cause  their 
rights  to  be  respected."  Now,  as  much  as  an  obligation 
of  an  indefinite  extent  is  worse  than  a  definite  obliga- 
tion, just  so  much  worse  are  the  terms  of  the  letter  of 
Cadore  than  the  original  terms  of  the  Milan  decree. 
Mr.  Speaker,  let  us  not  be  deceived  concerning  the  policy 
of  the  French  Emperor.  It  is  stern,  unrelenting,  and 
unrelaxing.  So  far  from  any  deviation  from  his  original 
system  being  indicated  in  this  letter  of  the  Duke  of  Cadore, 
a  strict  adherence  to  it  is  formally  and  carefully  expressed. 


NON-INTERCOURSE   WITH   ENGLAND.  269 

Ever  since  the  commencement  of  "  his  continental  sys- 
tem," as  it  is  called,  the  policy  of  Napoleon  has  uniformly 
been  to  oblige  the  United  States  to  effectual  co-opera- 
tion in  that  system.  As  early  as  the  7th  of  October, 
1807,  his  minister,  Champagny,  wrote  to  General  Arm- 
strong that  the  interests  of  all  maritime  powers  were 
common  to  unite  in  support  of  their  rights  against  Eng- 
land. After  this  followed  the  embargo  which  co-oper- 
ated effectually,  at  the  very  critical  moment,  in  his  great 
plan  of  continental  commercial  restriction.  On  the  24th 
of  the  ensuing  November,  he  resorts  to  the  same  lan- 
guage, "  In  violating  the  rights  of  all  nations,  England 
has  united  them  all  by  a  common  interest,  and  it  is  for 
them  to  have  recourse  to  force  against  her."  He  then 
proceeds  to  invite  the  United  States  to  take  with  the 
whole  continent  the  part  of  guaranteeing  itself  from  her 
injustice,"  and  "in  forcing  her  to  a  peacei"  On  the 
15th  of  January,  1808,  he  is  somewhat  more  pointed  and 
positive  as  to  our  efficient  concurrence  in  his  plan  of 
policy.  For  his  minister,  Champagny,  then  tells  us  that 
"  his  Majesty  has  no  doubt  of  a  declaration  of  war 
against  England  by  the  United  States,"  and  he  then 
proceeds  to  take  the  trouble  of  declaring  war  out  of  our 
hands,  and  volunteers  his  services  gratuitously  to  declare 
it  in  our  name  and  behalf.  "  War  exists,  then,  in  fact 
between  England  and  the  United  States  ;  and  his  Maj- 
esty considers  it  as  declared  from  the  day  on  which 
England  published  her  decrees."  And,  in  order  to 
make  assurance  doubly  sure,  he  sequesters  our  vessels 
in  his  ports  "  until  a  decision  may  be  had  on  the  dis- 
positions to  be  expressed  by  the  United  States  "  on  his 
proposition  of  considering  themselves  "  associated  in  the 


270  SPEECH    ON 

cause  of  all  the  powers  "  against  England.  Now  in  all 
this  there  is  no  deception,  and  can  be  no  mistake,  as  to 
the  purpose  of  his  policy.  He  tells  us,  as  plain  as  lan- 
guage can  speak,  that  "  by  causing  our  rights  to  be  re- 
spected," he  means  war,  on  his  side,  against  Great 
Britain  ;  that  "  our  interests  are  common  ;  "  that  he  con- 
siders us  already  "  associates  in  the  war ; "  and  that  he 
sequesters  our  property  by  way  of  security  for  our  dis- 
positions. This  is  his  old  policy.  I  pray  some  gentle- 
man on  the  other  side  of  the  House  to  point  out  in  what 
it  differs  from  the  new.  The  letter  of  Cadore  on  the 
5th  of  August  tells  us  it  is  expected  that  we  "  cause 
our  rights  to  be  respected  in  conformity  to  our  act," 
and  the  same  letter  also  tells  us  what  he  understands  to 
be  the  meaning  of  our  act,  —  "In  short  Congress  en- 
gages to  oppose  itself  to  that  one  of  the  belligerent 
powers  which  shall  refuse  to  acknowledge  the  rights  of 
neutrals."  In  other  words,  "  by  causing  our  rights  to 
be  respected  "  he  means  war  on  his  side  against  Great 
Britain.  In  perfect  conformity  with  this  uniform,  uncle- 
viating  policy,  his  minister,  Turreau.  tells  our  govern- 
ment, in  his  letter  of  the  28th  of  November  last,  that 
"  the  modifications  to  be  given  to  the  present  absolute 
exclusion  of  our  products  will  not  depend  upon  the 
chance  of  events,  but  will  be  the  result  of  measures, 
firm  and  pursued  with  perseverance,  which  the  two 
governments  will  continue  to  adopt,  to  withdraw,  from 
the  monopoly  and  from  the  vexations  of  the  common 
enemy,  a  commerce  loyal  and  necessary  to  France,  as 
well  as  the  United  States."  And  to  the  end  that  no 
one  feature  of  his  policy  should  be  changed,  or  even 
appear  to  be  relaxed,  his  Excellency  the  Duke  of  Massa, 


NON-INTERCOTJKSE   WITH   ENGLAND.  271 

and  his  Excellency  -the  Duke  of  Gae'tta,  in  their  respec- 
tive letters  of  the  25th  of  December,  declare  that  the 
property  taken  shall  be  "  only  sequestered  until  the 
United  States  have  fulfilled  their  engagements  to  cause 
their  rights  to  be  respected."  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  is 
there  a  man  in  this  House  bold  enough  to  maintain,  or 
with  capacity  enough  to  point  out,  any  material  varia- 
tion between  the  policy  of  France  to  this  country  sub- 
sequent to  the  Cadore  letter  of  the  5th  of  August,  and 
its  policy  anterior  to  that  period.  The  character  of  the 
policy  is  one  and  indivisible.  Bonaparte  has  not  yielded 
one  inch  to  our  administration.  Now,  as  he  has  neither 
performed  the  act  required  by  the  law  of  May,  1810 ; 
nor  produced  the  effect ;  nor  accepted  the  terms  it  pro- 
posed,—  whence  arise  our  obligations?  How  is  our 
faith  plighted  ?  In  what  way  are  we  bound  again  to 
launch  our  country  into  this  dark  sea  of  restrictions, 
surrounded  on  all  sides  with  perils  and  penalties  ? 

The  true  nature  of  this  Cadore  policy  is  alone  to  be 
discovered  in  the  character  of  his  master.  Napoleon  is 
an  universal  genius.  "  He  can  exchange  shapes  with 
Proteus  to  advantage."  He  hesitates  at  no  means,  and 
commands  every  skill.  He  toys  with  the  weak  ;  he 
tampers  with  the  mean ;  he  browbeats  the  haughty ; 
with  the  cunning,  he  is  a  serpent ;  for  the  courageous, 
he  has  teeth  and  talons  ;  for  the  cowering,  he  has  hoofs. 
He  found  our  administration  a  pen-and-ink  gentry,  — 
parchment  politicians  ;  and  he  has  laid,  for  these  ephem- 
eral essences,  a  paper  fly-trap  dipped  in  French  honey. 
Hercules,  finding  that  he  could  not  reach  our  adminis- 
tration with  his  club,  and  that  they  were  out  of  their 
wits  at  the  sight  of  his  lion's  skin,  has  condescended  to 


272  SPEECH    ON 

meet  them  in  petticoats,  and  conquer  them,  spinning  at 
their  own  distaff. 

As  to  those  who,  after  the  evidence  now  in  our  hands, 
deny  that  the  decrees  exist,  I  can  no  more  reason  with 
them  than  with  those  who  should  deny  the  sun  to  be  in 
the  firmament  at  noon-day.  The  decrees  revoked  ! 
The  formal  statute  act  of  a  despot  revoked  by  the  breath 
of  his  servile  minister,  uttered  on  conditions  not  per- 
formed by  Great  Britain  ;  and  claiming  terms,  not  in- 
tended to  be  performed  by  us  !  The  fatness  of  our 
commerce  secure,  when  every  wind  of  heaven  is  bur- 
dened with  the  sighs  of  our  suffering  seamen,  and  the 
coast  of  the  whole  continent  heaped  with  the  plunder  of 
our  merchants  !  The  den  of  the  tiger  safe,  yet  the 
tracks  of  those  who  enter  it  are  innumerable,  and  not  a 
trace  is  to  be  seen  of  a  returning  footstep !  The  den  of 
the  tiger  safe,  while  the  cry  of  the  mangled  victims  are 
heard  through  the  adamantine  walls  of  his  cave,  —  cries 
which  despair  and  anguish  utter,  and  which  despotism 
itself  cannot  stifle ! 

No,  Mr.  Speaker,  let  us  speak  the  truth.  The  act 
now  proposed  is  required  by  no  obligation.  It  is  wholly 
gratuitous.  Call  it,  then,  by  its  proper  name,  —  the 
first  fruit  of  French  allegiance  ;  a  token  of  transatlantic 
submission :  any  thing  except  an  act  of  an  American 
Congress,  the  representatives  of  freemen. 

The  present  is  the  most  favorable  moment  for  the 
abandonment  of  these  restrictions,  unless  a  settled  co- 
operation with  the  French  continental  system  be  deter- 
mined. We  have  tendered  the  provisions  of  this  act  to 
both  belligerents.  Both  have  accepted.  Both,  as  prin- 
cipals or  by  their  agents,  have  deceived  us. 


NON-INTERCOURSE  WITH   ENGLAND.  273 

We  talk  of  the  edicts  of  George  the  Third  and  of 
Napoleon.  Yet  those  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  under  your  law,  are  far  more  detestable  to  your 
merchants.  Their  edicts  plunder  the  rich:  his  make 
those  who  are  poor  still  poorer.  Their  decrees  attack 
the  extremities  :  his  proclamation  fixes  upon  the  vitals, 
and  checks  the  action  of  the  seat  of  commercial  life. 

I  know  that  great  hopes  are  entertained  of  relief  from 
the  proposed  law  by  the  prospect  of  a  British  regency. 
Between  a  mad  monarch  and  a  simpering  successor,  it 
is  expected  that  the  whole  system  of  that  nation  will  be 
abandoned.  Let  gentlemen  beware,  and  not  calculate 
too  certainly  on  the  fulfilment  by  men  in  power  of  pro- 
fessions made  out  of  it.  The  majority  need  not  go  out 
of  our  own  country,  nor  beyond  their  own  practice,  to 
be  convinced  how  easily  in  such  cases  proud  promises 
may  eventuate  in  meagre  performance. 

The  whole  bearing  of  my  argument  is  to  this  point. 
It  is  time  to  take  our  own  rights  into  our  own  keeping. 
It  is  time,  if  we  will  not  protect,  to  refrain  from  ham- 
pering by  our  own  acts,  the  commerce  of  our  country. 
Put  your  merchants  no  longer  under  the  guardianship 
and  caprice  of  foreign  powers.  Punish  not,  at  the  insti- 
gation of  foreigners,  your  own  citizens  for  following 
their  righteous  callings.  We  owe  nothing  to  France. 
We  owe  nothing  to  Great  Britain.  We  owe  every  thing 
to  the  American  people.  Let  us  show  ourselves  really 
independent ;  and  look  to  a  grateful,  a  powerful,  and 
then  united,  people  for  support  ag-ainst  every  aggressor. 


18 


SPEECH 

ON  THE  PAY  OF  NON-COMMISSIONED  OFFICERS. 
JAN.  5,  1813. 


SPEECH 

ON  THE  PAY  OF  NON-COMMISSIONED  OFFICERS. 
JAN.  5,  1813. 


[THIS  speech  would  be  more  correctly  entitled  one  on  the 
Enlistment  of  Minors,  —  one  clause  of  the  bill  authorizing  the 
enlistment  of  minors  and  apprentices  without  the  previous  consent 
of  parents,  masters,  and  guardians.  It  greatly  exasperated  the 
administration  members,  and  called  down  on  Mr.  Quincy's  head 
the  bitterest  personalities  and  the  most  furious  rage  that  had  ever 
yet  been  visited  upon  him.  It  was  denounced  as  "a  foul  and 
atrocious  libel "  and  an  "  atrocious  falsehood."  None  of  these 
things,  however,  moved  his  constant  soul ;  and  he  had  the  satis- 
faction of  knowing  that  the  objectionable  clause  was  struck  out 
by  the  Senate,  after  it  had  passed  the  House,  mainly  through 
the  influence  of  this  speech.  Only  four  Senators  voted  for  it. 
—  ED.] 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  am  sensible  that  I  owe  an  apology 
for  addressing  you  at  so  early  a  period  of  the  session, 
and  so  soon  after  taking  my  seat,  if  not  to  the  House, 
at  least  to  my  particular  constituents.  It  is  well  known 
to  them,  at  least  to  very  many  of  them,  for  I  have  taken 
no  pains  to  conceal  the  intention,  that  I  came  to  this 
session  of  Congress,  with  a  settled  determination  to 
take  no  part  in  the  deliberations  of  the  House.  I  had 
adopted  this  resolution,  not  so  much  from  a  sense  of 


278  SPEECH    ON    THE 

self-respect  as  of  public  duty.  Seven  years'  experience 
in  the  business  of  this  House  has  convinced  me  that 
from  this  side  of  the  House  all  argument  is  hopeless ; 
that,  whatever  a  majority  has  determined  to  do,  it  will 
do,  in  spite  of  any  moral  suggestion  or  any  illustration 
made  in  this  quarter.  Whether  it  be  from  the  nature 
of  man,  or  whether  it  be  from  the  particular  provisions 
of  our  Constitution,  I  know  not,  but  the  experience  of 
my  political  life  has  perfectly  convinced  me  of  this  fact, 
that  the  will  of  the  cabinet  is  the  law  of  the  land. 
Under  these  impressions,  I  have  felt  it  my  duty  not  to 
deceive  my  constituents,  and  had  therefore  resolved  by 
no"^  act  or  expression  of  mine  in  any  way  to  countenance 
the  belief  that  any  representation  I  could  make  on  this 
floor  could  be  useful  to  them,  or  that  I  could  serve  them 
any  farther  than  by  a  silent  vote.  Even  now,  sir,  it  is 
not  my  intention  to  enter  into  this  discussion.  I  shall 
present  you  my  thoughts,  rather  by  way  of  protest  than 
of  argument.  And  I  shall  not  trouble  myself  afterwards 
with  any  cavils  that  may  be  made ;  neither  by  whom, 
nor  in  what  manner. 

I  should  not  have  deviated  from  the  resolution  of 
which  I  have  spoken,  were  it  not  for  what  appears  to 
me  the  atrocity  of  the  principle  and  the  magnitude  of 
the  mischief  contained  in  the  provisions  of  this  bill. 
When  I  speak  of  the  principle  as  atrocious,  I  beg  dis- 
tinctly to  be  understood  as  not  impeaching  the  motives 
of  any  gentlemen,  or  representing  them  as  advocating 
an  atrocious  principle.  I  speak  only  of  thejnanner  in 
which  the  object  presents  itself  to  my  moral  view. 

It  is  the  principle  contained  in  the  third  section  of 
the  bill  of  which  I  speak.  That  section  provides  that 


ENLISTMENT   OF  MINORS.  279 

*'  every  person  above  the  age  of  eighteen  years,  who 
shall  be  enlisted  by  any  officer,  shall  be  held  in  the  ser- 
vice of  the  United  States  during  the  period  of  such 
enlistment,  any  thing  in  any  act  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding." The  nature  of  this  provision  is  apparent ; 
its  tendency  is  not  denied.  It  is  to  seduce  minors  of  all 
descriptions  —  be  they  wards,  apprentices,  or  children  — 
from  the  service  of  their  guardians,  masters,  and  parents. 
On  this  principle  I  rest  my  objection  to  the  bill.  I 
meddle  not  with  the  nature  of  the  war.  Nor  is  it 
because  I  am  hostile  to  this  war,  both  in  its  principle 
and  its  conduct,  that  I  at  present  make  any  objection 
to  the  provisions  of  the  bill.  I  say  nothing  against  its 
waste  of  public  money.  If  eight  dollars  a  month  for 
the  private  be  not  enough,  take  sixteen  dollars.  If  that 
be  riot  enough,  take  twenty.  Economy  is  not  my  diffi- 
culty. Nor  do  I  think  much  of  that  objection  of  which 
my  honorable  friend  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Milnor) 
seemed  to  think  a  great  deal,  —  the  liberation  of  debtors 
from  their  obligations.  So  far  as  relates  to  the  present 
argument,  without  any  objection  from  me,  you  may 
take  what  temptations  you  please,  and  apply  them  to 
the  ordinary  haunts  for  enlistment,  —  clear  the  jails ; 
exhaust  the  brothel;  make  a  desert  of  the  tippling 
shop ;  lay  what  snares  you  please  for  overgrown  vice, 
for  lunacy  which  is  of  full  age  and  idiocy  out  of  its 
time.  But  here  stop.  Touch  not  private  right ;  regard 
the  sacred  ties  of  guardian  and  master ;  corrupt  not 
our  youth  ;  listen  to  the  necessities  of  our  mechanics 
and  manufacturers ;  have  compassion  for  the  tears  of 
parents. 

In  order  to  give  a  clear  view  of  my  subject,  I  shall 


280  SPEECH   ON    THE 

consider  it  under  three  aspects.  Its  absurdity,  its  in- 
equality, its  immorality.  In  remarking  on  the  absurdity 
of  this  principle,  it  is  necessary  to  recur  to  that  part  of 
the  message  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  at 
the  opening  of  the  present  session  of  Congress,  which 
introduced  the  objects  proposed  in  this  bill  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  House,  and  to  observe  the  strange  and 
left-handed  conclusions  it  contains.  The  paragraph  to 
which  I  allude  is  the  following  :  — 

"  With  a  view  to  that  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war 
to  which  our  national  faculties  are  adequate,  the  atten- 
tion of  Congress  will  be  particularly  drawn  to  the  insuf- 
ficiency of  existing  provisions  for  filling  up  the  military 
establishment.  Such  is  the  happy  condition  of  our 
country  arising  from  the  facility  of  subsistence  and  the 
high  wages  for  every  species  of  occupation  that,  not- 
withstanding the  augmented  inducements  provided  at 
the  last  session,  a  partial  success  only  has  attended 
the  recruiting  service.  The  deficien  y  has  been  neces- 
sarily supplied  during  the  campaign  by  other  than  reg- 
ular troops,  with  all  the  inconveniences  and  expense 
incident  to  them.  The  remedy  lies  in  establishing  more 
favorably  for  the  private  soldier  the  proportion  between 
his  recompense  and  the  term  of  enlistment.  And  it  is 
a  subject  which  cannot  too  soon,  or  too  seriously,  be 
taken  into  consideration." 

Mr.  Speaker,  what  a  picture  of  felicity  has  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  here  drawn  in  describing  the 
situation  of  the  yeomanry  of  this  country  ?  Their  con- 
dition happy,  subsistence  easy,  wages  high,  full  employ- 
ment,—  to  such  favored  beings,  what  would  be  the 
suggestions  of  love  truly  parental  ?  Surely  that  so  much 


ENLISTMENT    OF    MINOES.  281 

happiness  should  not  be  put  at  hazard,  that  innocence 
should  not  be  tempted  to  scenes  of  guilt,  that  the 
prospering  ploughshare  should  not  be  exchanged  for 
the  sword.  Such  would  be  the  lessons  of  parental 
love.  And  such  will  always  be  the  lessons  which  a 
President  of  the  United  States  will  teach  in  such  a  state 
of  things,  whenever  a  father  of  his  country  is  at  the  head 
of  the  nation.  Alas,  Mr.  Speaker,  how  different  is  this 
message  !  The  burden  of  the  thought  is,  how  to  decoy 
the  happy  yeoman  from  home,  from  peace  and  pros- 
perity, to  scenes  of  blood,  how  to  bait  the  man-trap  ; 
what  inducements  shall  be  held  forth  to  avarice  which 
neither  virtue  nor  habit  nor  wise  influences  can  resist. 
But  this  is  not  the  whole.  Our  children  are  to  be 
seduced  from  their  parents.  Apprentices  are  invited 
to  abandon  their  masters.  A  legislative  sanction  is 
offered  to  perfidy  and  treachery.  Bounty  and  wages 
to  filial  disobedience.  Such  are  the  moral  means,  by 
which  a  war,  not  of  defence  or  of  necessity,  but  of  pride 
and  ambition,  should  be  prosecuted, — fit  means  to 
such  end ! 

The  absurdity  of  this  bill  consists  in  this,  —  in  sup- 
posing these  provisions  to  be  the  remedy  for  the  evil  of 
which  the  President  complains.  The  difficulty  is  that 
men  cannot  be  enlisted.  The  remedy  proposed  is,  more 
money,  and  legislative  liberty  to  corrupt  our  youth. 
And  how  is  this  proved  to  be  a  remedy  ?  Why,  it  has 
been  told  us,  on  the  other  side  of  the  House,  that  this 
is  just  the  thing  they  do  in  France ;  that  the  age 
between  eighteen  and  twenty-one  is  the  best  age  to 
make  soldiers  ;  that  it  is  the  most  favorite  age  in  Bona- 
parte's conscription.  Well,  sir,  what  then  ?  Are  we  in 


282  SPEECH   ON   THE 

France?  Is  Napoleon  our  King?  or  is  he  the  President 
of  the  United  States  ?  The  style  in  which  this  example 
has  been  urged  on  the  House  recalls  to  my  recollection, 
very  strongly,  a  caricature  print  which  was  much  circu- 
lated in  the  early  period  of  our  revolutionary  war.  The 
picture  represented  America  as  a  hale  youth,  about  eigh- 
teen or  twenty-one,  with  a  huge  purse  in  his  pocket. 
Lord  North,  with  a  pistol  at  his  breast,  was  saying, 
"  Deliver  your  money."  George  III.,  pointing  at  the 
young  man  and  speaking  to  Lord  North,  said,  "  I  give 
you  that  man's  money  for  my  use."  Behind  the  whole 
group  was  a  Frenchman  capering,  rubbing  his  hands  for 
joy,  and  exclaiming,  "  Begar,  just  so  in  France."  Now, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  day 
that  this  act  passes,  and  the  whole  class  of  our  Northern 
youth  is  made  subject  to  the  bribes  of  your  recruiting 
officers,  that  there  will  be  thousands  of  Frenchmen  in 
these  United  States  capering,  rubbing  their  hands  for 
joy,  and  exclaiming,  "  Begar,  just  so  in  France."  Sir, 
the  great  mistake  of  this  whole  project  lies  in  this, — 
that  French  maxims  are  applied  to  American  States. 
Now,  it  ought  never  to  be  lost  sight  of  by  legislators  in 
this  country  that  the  people  of  it  are  not  and  never  can 
be  Frenchmen ;  and,  on  the  contrary ;  that  they  are, 
and  can  never  be  any  thing  else  than,  Freemen. 

The  true  source  of  the  absurdity  of  this  bill  is  a  mis- 
take in  the  nature  of  the  evil.  The  President  of  the 
United  States  tells  us  that  the  administration  have  not 
sufficient  men  for  their  armies.  The  reason  is,  he  adds, 
the  want  of  pecuniary  motive.  In  this  lies  the  error. 
It  is  not  pecuniary  motive  that  is  wanting  to  fill  your 
armies ;  it  is  moral  motive  in  which  you  are  deficient. 


ENLISTMENT   OF   MINOBS.  283 

Sir,  whatever  difference  of  opinion  may  exist  among  the 
happy  and  wise  yeomanry  of  New  England  in  relation 
to  the  principle  and  necessity  of  this  war,  there  is  very 
little  or  at  least  much  less  diversity  of  sentiment  con- 
cerning the  invasion  of  Canada  as  a  means  of  prosecuting 
it.  They  do  not  want  Canada  as  an  object  of  ambition. 
They  do  not  want  it  as  an  object  of  plunder.  They  see 
no  imaginable  connection  between  the  conquest  of  that 
province,  and  the  attainment  of  those  commercial  rights 
which  were  the  pretended  objects  of  the  war.  On  the 
contrary,  they  see,  and  very  plainly  too,  that  if  our 
cabinet  be  gratified  in  the  object  of  its  ambition,  and 
Canada  become  a  conquered  province,  that  an  apology 
is  immediately  given  for  extending  and  maintaining  in 
that  country  a  large  military  force  under  pretence  of 
preserving  the  conquered  territories  ;  really,  with  a  view 
to  overawe  the  adjoining  States.  With  this  view  of  that 
project,  the  yeomanry  of  New  England  want  that  moral 
motive  which  will  alone,  in  that  country,  fill  your  armies 
with  men  worthy  enlisting.  They  have  no  desire  to  be 
the  tools  of  the  ambition  of  any  man  or  any  set  of  men. 
Schemes  of  conquest  have  no  charms  for  them. 

Abandon  your  projects  of  invasion ;  throw  your 
shield  over  the  seaboard  and  the  frontier  ;  awe  into 
silence  the  Indians  in  your  territory  ;  fortify  your  cities  ; 
take  the  shackles  from  your  commerce  ;  give  us  ships 
and  seamen ;  and  show  the  people  of  this  country  a 
wise  object  of  warfare,  and  there  will  be  no  want  of 
men,  money,  or  spirit. 

I  proceed  to  my  second  objection,  which  was  to  the 
inequality  of  the  operation  of  the  provisions  of  this  bill. 
It  is  never  to  be  forgotten,  in  the  conduct  of  the  govern- 


284  SPEECH    ON   THE 

merit  of  these  United  States,  that  it  is  apolitical  associa- 
tion of  independent  sovereignties,  greatly  differing  in 
respect  of  wealth,  resource,  enterprise,  extent  of  terri- 
tory, and  preparation  of  arms.  It  ought  also  never  to 
be  forgotten  that  the  proportion  of  physical  force  which 
nature  has  given  does  not  lie  within  precisely  the  same 
line  of  division  with  the  proportion  of  political  influence 
which  the  Constitution  has  provided.  Now,  sir,  wise 
men  conducting  a  political  association  thus  constructed, 
ought  always  to  have  mainly  in  view  not  to  disgust 
any  of  the  great  sections  of  the  country,  either  in  regard 
of  their  interests,  their  habits,  or  their  prejudices. 
Particularly  ought  they  to  be  cautious  not  to  burden 
any  of  the  great  sections  in  a  way  peculiarly  odious  to 
them,  and  in  which  the  residue  of  the  States  cannot  be 
partakers,  or  at  least  only  in  a  very  small  degree.  I 
think  this  principle  of  political  action  is  incontrovertible. 
Now,  sir,  of  all  the  distinctions  which  exist  in  these 
United  States,  that  which  results  from  the  character  of 
the  labor  in  different  parts  of  the  country  is  the  most 
obvious  and  critical.  In  the  Southern  States  all  the 
laborious  industry  of  the  country  is  conducted  by 
slaves  ;  in  the  Northern  States  it  is  conducted  by  the 
yeomanry,  their  apprentices  or  children.  The  truth  is, 
that  the  only  real  property  in  the  labor  of  others  which 
exists  in  the  Northern  States  is  that  which  is  possessed 
in  that  of  minors,  the  veiy  class  of  which,  at  its  most 
valuable  period,  this  law  proposes  to  divest  them.  The 
planter  of  the  South  can  look  round  upon  his  fifty,  his 
hundred,  and  his  thousand  of  human  beings,  and  say, 
'•  These  are  my  property."  The  farmer  of  the  North 
has  only  one  or  two  "  ewe  lambs,"  his  children,  of  which 


ENLISTMENT  OF  MINORS.  285 

he  can  say,  and  say  with  pride,  like  the  Roman  matron, 
"  These  are  my  ornaments."  Yet  these  tins  bill  proposes 
to  take  from  him,  or  what  is  the  same  thing,  proposes  to 
corrupt  them,  to  bribe  them  out  of  his  service,  and  that, 
too,  at  the  very  age  when  the  desire  of  freedom  is  the 
most  active,  and  the  splendor  of  false  glory  the  most 
enticing.  Yet  your  slaves  are  safe  ;  there  is  no  project 
for  their  manumission  in  the  bill.  The  husbandman  of 
the  North,  the  mechanic,  the  manufacturer,  shall  have 
the  property  he  holds  in  the  minors  subject  to  him  put 
to  hazard.  Your  property  in  the  labor  of  others  is  safe. 
Where  is  the  justice,  —  where  the  equality  of  such  a 
provision  ? 

It  is  very  well  known  in  our  country  —  indeed,  it  is 
obvious  from  the  very  nature  of  the  thing  —  that  the 
exact  period  of  life  at  which  the  temptation  of  this  law 
begins  to  operate  upon  the  minor  is  the  moment  when 
his  services  begin  to  be  the  most  useful  to  the  parent  or 
master.  Until  the  age  of  eighteen  the  boy  has  hardly 
paid  to  the  parent  or  master  the  cost  of  his  clothing  and 
education.  Between  the  age  of  eighteen  and  twenty  is 
just  the  period  of  profit  to  the  father  and  master.  It  is 
also  the  period  at  which,  from  the  approximation  tow- 
ards manhood,  service  begins  to  grow  irksome  and 
the  desire  of  liberty  powerful.  The  passions  are  then, 
also,  in  their  most  ungoverned  sway  ;  and  the  judg- 
ment, not  yet  ripe,  can  easily  be  infatuated  and  cor- 
rupted by  the  vain  dreams  of  military  glory.  At  this 
period  your  law  appears  with  its  instruments  of  seduc- 
tion. It  offers  freedom  to  the  minor's  desire  of  liberty, 
plunder  to  his  avarice,  glory  to  his  weakness  ;  in  short,  it 
offers  bounty  and  wages  for  disobedience  to  his  natural 


286  SPEECH   ON   THE 

or  social  obligations.  This  is  a  true  view  of  this  law. 
That  it  will  have  that  full  operation  which  its  advocates 
hope  and  expect,  that  it  will  fill  your  armies  with  run- 
aways from  their  masters  and  fathers,  I  do  not  believe. 
But  that  it  will  have  a  very  great  operation  I  know. 
The  temptation  to  some  of  our  youth  will  be  irresistible. 
With  my  consent  they  shall  never  be  exposed  to  it. 

I  offer  another  consideration.  The  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  declares,  in  its  seventh  amendment, 
—  "  Private  property  shall  not  be  taken  for  public  use, 
without  just  compensation."  Now,  of  all  the  property 
which  the  laws  of  the  Northern  States  secure  to  the 
people  of  that  country,  that  which  consists  in  the  labor 
of  the  minor,  and  which  by  our  laws  is  sacred  to  the 
guardian,  master,  or  parent,  is  perhaps  the  most  valued 
and  most  precious  to  our  mechanics,  manufacturers,  and 
yeomen.  Yet  when  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
(Mr.  Stowe)  proposed  to  secure  the  wages  and  bounty 
of  the  enlisting  minor  to  those  to  whom  his  service 
belonged,  it  was  rejected.  What  is  this  but  a  palpable 
violation  of  this  provision  of  the  Constitution  ?  What 
is  it  but  taking  private  property  for  public  use  without 
compensation  ? 

But  neither  the  pecuniary  loss  nor  yet  the  violation 
of  the  Constitution  is  the  evil  which  I  most  deprecate. 
It  is  the  infringement  of  our  moral  rights,  and  the  inroad 
which  the  bill  makes  in  the  moral  habits  of  our  quarter 
of  the  country.  I  know  that  gentlemen  are  very  apt 
to  sneer  when  they  hear  any  thing  said  about  our 
religious  institutions  or  moral  habits  in  the  eastern 
country;  but  I  will  explain  what  I  mean.  It  is  not 
our  religious  institutions,  our  sabbaths,  our  fasts,  our 


ENLISTMENT  OF   MINOES.  287 

thanksgivings  ;  nor  yet  our  schools,  colleges,  and  semi- 
naries of  education,  —  to  which  I  refer  when  I  speak  of 
our  moral  habits.  These  are  but  means  and  precau- 
tions. It  is  certain  established  principles  of  life  and 
conduct  which,  without  being  noticed  in  general  laws, 
are  often  the  foundation  of  them,  and  which  always  rule 
and  control  our  positive  institutions.  I  do  not  know, 
for  instance,  that  the  extent  of  the  moral  tie  which 
binds  the  son  to  the  father,  or  the  apprentice  to  the 
master,  is  precisely  assigned  by  any  of  our  laws.  Yet 
the  principle  upon  which  all  our  laws  on  this  subject 
rest,  is  this, — that  this  tie  is  sacred  and  inviolate. 
The  law  regulates,  but,  except  in  case  of  misconduct, 
never  severs  it. 

I  know  it  is  said  that  in  our  country  minors  are  sub- 
jected to  militia  duty ;  and  so  they  are.  But  this  very 
service  is  a  proof  of  the  position  which  I  maintain. 
Their  obligation  to  serve  in  the  militia  is  always  subject 
to  the  paramount  authority  of  the  master  and  the 
parent. 

The  law  says,  it  is  true,  that  minors  shall  be  subject 
to  militia  duty.  But  it  also  permits  the  father  and  the 
master  to  relieve  them  from  that  obligation  at  an  estab- 
lished price.  If  either  will  pay  the  fine,  he  may  retain 
the  service  of  the  minor,  free  from  the  militia  duty. 
What  is  the  consequence  of  all  this  ?  Why,  that  the 
minor  always  trains  not  free  of  the  will,  but  subject  to 
the  will,  of  his  natural  or  legal  guardians.  The  moral 
tie  is  sacred.  It  is  never  broken.  It  is  a  principle 
that,  cases  of  misconduct  out  of  the  question,  the  minor 
shall  never  conceive  himself  capable  of  escaping  from 
the  wholesome  and  wise  control  of  his  master  or  father. 


288        SPEECH   ON  THE   ENLISTMENT  OF  MINORS. 

The  proposed  law  cuts  athwart  this  wise  principle. 
It  preaches  infidelity.  It  makes  every  recruiting  officer 
in  your  country  an  apostle  of  perfidy.  It  says  to  every 
vain,  thoughtless,  discontented,  or  ambitious  minor : 
"  Come  hither  ;  here  is  an  asylum  from  your  bonds  ; 
here  are  wages  and  bounty  for  disobedience :  only  con- 
sent to  go  to  Canada  ;  forget  what  you  owe  to  nature 
and  your  protectors ;  go  to  Canada,  and  you  shall  find 
freedom  and  glory."  Such  is  the  morality  of  this  law. 

Take  a  slave  from  his  master,  on  any  general  and 
novel  principle,  and  there  would  be  an  earthquake  from 
the  Potomac  to  the  St.  Mary's.  Bribe  an  apprentice 
from  his  master ;  seduce  a  son,  worth  all  the  slaves 
Africa  ever  produced,  from  his  father, —  we  are  told 
it  is  only  a  common  affair.  It  will  be  right  when  there 
is  law  for  it.  Such  is  now  the  law  in  France  ! 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  hope  what  I  am  now  about  to  say 
will  not  be  construed  into  a  threat.  It  is  not  uttered 
in  that  spirit ;  but  only  to  evince  the  strength  of  my 
convictions  concerning  the  effect  of  the  provisions  of 
this  law  on  the  hopes  of  New  England,  particularly 
of  Massachusetts.  But  pass  it,  and,  if  the  legislatures 
of  the  injured  States  do  not  come  down  upon  your  re- 
cruiting officers  with  the  old  laws  against  kidnapping 
and  manstealing,  they  are  false  to  themselves,  their 
posterity  and  their  country. 


SPEECH 

IN     RELATION    TO    MARITIME    PROTECTION. 
JAN.  25,  1812. 


19 


SPEECH 

IN    RELATION    TO    MARITIME    PROTECTION. 
JAN.  25,  1812. 


[Tuis  speech  had  the  singular  good  fortune,  I  believe  unex- 
mpled  in  Mr.  Quincy's  congressional  life,  of  being  applauded 
by  both  sides  of  the  House.  As  the  conflict  with  England, 
which  the  war-party  in  Congress  was  bent  upon  bringing  about, 
became  more  and  more  imminent,  the  more  intelligent  of  its 
members  could  not  shut  their  eyes  to  the  necessity  of  some  kind 
of  naval  defence.  Even  the  Southern  democrats,  who  always 
had  resisted  every  attempt  to  strengthen  the  navy,  as  a  pro- 
tection only  needed  by  the  North,  saw  that  a  war  with  a  great 
maritime  power  must  be  waged  on  the  ocean  as  well  as  on  the 
land.  Accordingly,  several  of  the  principal  Southern  adminis- 
tration members,  and  Mr.  Calhoun  in  particular,  applied  to  Mr. 
Quincy  for  his  assistance  in  this  matter.  The  speech  gave 
general  satisfaction,  in  and  out  of  Congress,  the  only  exceptions 
being  some  Federal  extremists,  who  looked  upon  any  measures 
for  the  defence  of  the  country  in  case  of  war  as  a  strengthening  of 
the  hands  of  the  administration,  and  encouraging  it  to  provoke 
one.  Ex-President  John  Adams,  whose  decided  opinions  in  favor 
of  a  powerful  naval  establishment  are  well  known,  expressed 
his  approbation  of  this  speech  in  these  strong  terms :  "  I  thank 
you  for  your  speech  in  relation  to  Maritime  Protection,  and  much 
more  for  making  it.  It  is  the  speech  of  a  man,  a  citizen,  and  a 
statesman.  It  is  neither  hyperbole  nor  flattery  in  me  to  say,  it 
is  the  most  important  speech  ever  uttered  in  that  House  since 
1789.  — ED.] 


292  SPEECH    ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION. 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  rise  to  address  you  on  this  occasion 
with  no  affected  diffidence,  and  with  many  doubts  con- 
cerning the  expediency  of  taking  any  part  in  this  debate. 
On  the  one  hand,  the  subject  has  been  discussed  with  a 
zeal,  industry,  and  talent,  which  leave  but  little  scope 
for  novelty  either  in  topic  or  illustration.  On  the  other 
hand,  arguments  from  this  side  of  the  House  in  favor  of 
this  question  are  received  with  so  natural  a  jealousy 
that  I  know  not  whether  more  may  not  be  lost  than 
gained  by  so  unpropitious  a  support.  Indeed,  sir,  if  this 
subject  had  been  discussed  on  narrow  or  temporary  or 
party  principles,  I  should  have  been  silent.  On  such 
ground  I  could  not  condescend  to  debate  ;  I  could  not 
hope  to  influence.  But  the  scale  of  discussion  has  been 
enlarged  and  liberal,  relative  rather  to  the  general 
system  than  to  the  particular  exigency  ;  in  almost  every 
respect  it  has  been  honorable  to  the  House  and  auspi- 
cious to  the  prospects  of  the  nation.  In  such  a  state  of 
feeling  and  sentiment,  I  could  not  refrain  from  indulging 
the  hope  that  suggestions,  even  from  no  favorite  quar- 
ter, would  be  received  with  candor,  perhaps  with  atten- 
tion. And,  when  I  consider  the  deep  interest  which  the 
State  from  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be  a  Representative 
has,  according  to  my  apprehension,  in  the  event,  I  can- 
not permit  the  opportunity  entirely  to  pass  without 
bringing  my  small  tribute  of  reflection  into  the  general 
stock  of  the  House. 

The  object  I  shall  chiefly  attempt  to  enforce  is  the 
necessity  and  duty  of  a  systematic  protection  of  our 
maritime  rights  by  maritime  means.  I  would  call  the 
thoughtful  and  intelligent  men  of  this  House  and  nation 
to  the  contemplation  of  the  essential  connection  between 


SPEECH   ON    MARITIME   PROTECTION.  293 

a  naval  force  proportionate  to  the  circumstances  of  our 
sea-coast,  the  extent  of  our  commerce,  and  the  inherent 
enterprise  of  our  people  ;  —  I  say,  sir,  I  would  call  them 
to  the  contemplation  of  the  essential  connection  between 
such  a  naval  force  and  the  safety,  prosperity,  and  exist- 
ence of  our  Union.  In  the  course  of  my  observations, 
and  as  a  subsidiary  argument,  I  shall  also  attempt  to 
show  the  connection  between  the  adoption  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  a  systematic  maintenance  of  our  maritime  rights 
by  maritime  means,  and  relief  from  our  present  national 
embarrassments. 

I  confess  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  never  can  look  — 
indeed,  in  my  opinion,  no  American  statesman  ought  ever 
to  look  —  on  any  question  touching  the  vital  interests 
of  this  nation,  or  of  any  of  its  component  parts,  without 
keeping  at  all  times  in  distinct  view  the  nature  of  our 
political  association,  and  the  character  of  the  indepen- 
dent sovereignties  which  compose  it.  Among  States,  the 
only  sure  and  permanent  bond  of  union  is  interest ;  and 
the  vital  interests  of  States,  although  they  may  be  some- 
times obscured,  can  never,  for  a  very  long  time,  be 
misapprehended.  The  natural  protection  which  the 
essential  interests  of  the  great  component  parts  of  our 
political  association  require  will  be,  sooner  or  later, 
understood  by  the  States  concerned  in  those  interests. 
If  a  protection,  upon  system,  be  not  provided,  it  is 
impossible  that  discontent  should  not  result.  And  need 
I  tell  statesmen  that,  when  great  local  discontent  is 
combined  in  those  sections  with  great  physical  power 
and  with  acknowledged  portions  of  sovereignty,  the 
inbred  ties  of  nature  will  be  too  strong  for  the  artificial 
ties  of  a  parchment  compact  ? 


294  SPEECH    ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION. 

Hence  it  results  that  the  essential  interests  of  the 
great  component  parts  of  our  association  ought  to  be 
the  polar  lights  of  all  our  statesmen  ;  by  them  they 
should  guide  their  course.  According  to  the  bearings 
and  variations  of  those  lights  should  the  statesmen  of 
such  a  country  adjust  their  policy;  always  bearing  in 
mind  two  assurances,  as  fundamental  principles  of 
action,  which  the  nature  of  things  teaches,  —  that 
although  temporary  circumstances,  party  spirit,  local 
rivalries,  personal  jealousies,  suggestions  of  subordinate 
interests,  may  weaken  or  even  destroy  for  a  time  the 
influence  of  the  leading  and  permanent  interests  of  any 
great  section  of  the  country,  yet  those  interests  must 
ultimately  and  necessarily  predominate  and  swallow  up 
all  these  local,  and  temporary,  and  personal,  and  subor- 
dinate considerations:  in  other  words,  the  minor  in- 
terests will  soon  begin  to  realize  the  essential  connection 
which  exists  between  their  prosperity  and  the  prosperity 
of  those  great  interests  which,  in  such  sections  of  the 
country,  nature  has  made  predominant,  and  that  no 
political  connection  among  free  States  can  be  lasting,  or 
ought  to  be,  which  systematically  oppresses  or  systemat- 
ically refuses  to  protect  the  vital  interests  of  any  of 
the  sovereignties  which  compose  it. 

I  have  recurred  to  these  general  considerations  to 
introduce  and  elucidate  this  principle,  which  is  the 
basis  of  my  argument,  that,  as  it  is  the  incumbent  duty 
of  every  nation  to  protect  its  essential  interests,  so  it  is 
the  most  impressive  and  critical  duty  of  a  nation,  com- 
posed of  a  voluntary  association  of  vast,  powerful,  and 
independent  States,  to  protect  the  essential  interests  of 
all  its  great  component  parts.  And  I  add  that  this  pro- 


SPEECH    ON    MARITIME   PROTECTION.  295 

tection  must  not  be  formal  or  fictitious,  but  that  it 
must  be  proportionate  to  the  greatness  of  those  interests, 
and  of  a  nature  to  give  content  to  the  States  concerned 
in  their  protection. 

In  reference  to  this  principle,  the  course  of  my  reflec- 
tions will  be  guided  by  two  general  inquiries,  —  the 
nature  of  the  interest  to  be  protected,  the  nature  of  the 
protection  to  be  extended.  In  pursuing  these  inquiries, 
I  shall  touch  very  slightly,  if  at  all,  on  the  abstract  duty 
of  protection,  which  is  the  very  end  of  all  political  asso- 
ciations, and  without  the  attainment  of  which  they  are 
burdens  and  no  blessings.  But  I  shall  keep  it  mainly 
in  my  purpose  to  establish  the  connection  between  a 
naval  force  and  commercial  prosperity  ;  and  to  show 
the  nature  of  the  necessity,  and  the  degree  of  our 
capacity,  to  give  to  our  maritime  rights  a  maritime 
protection. 

In  contemplating  the  nature  of  the  interest  to  be  pro- 
tected, three  prominent  features  strike  the  eye  and 
direct  the  course  of  reflection,  —  its  locality,  its  great- 
ness, and  its  permanency. 

The  locality  of  any  great  interest,  in  an  association 
of  States  such  as  compose  this  Union,  will  be  a  circum- 
stance of  primary  importance  in  the  estimation  of  every 
wise  statesman.  When  a  great  interest  is  equally  dif- 
fused over  the  whole  mass,  it  may  be  neglected  or 
oppressed,  or  even  abandoned,  with  less  hazard  of  inter- 
nal dissension.  The  equality  of  the  pressure  lightens  the 
burden.  The  common  nature  of  the  interest  removes 
the  causes  of  jealousy.  A  concern  equally  affecting  the 
happiness  of  every  part  of  the  nation,  it  is  natural  to 
suppose  is  equally  dear  to  all,  and  equally  understood 


296  SPEECH    ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION. 

by  all.  Hence  results  acquiescence  in  any  artificial  or 
political  embarrassment  of  it.  Sectional  fears  and  sus- 
picions, in  such  case,  have  no  food  for  support  and  no 
stimulant  for  activity.  But  it  is  far  otherwise  when  a 
great  interest  is,  from  its  nature,  either  wholly,  or  in 
a  very  great  proportion,  local.  In  relation  to  such  a 
local  interest,  it  is  impossible  that  jealousies  and  suspi- 
cions should  not  arise  whenever  it  is  obstructed  by  any 
artificial  or  political  embarrassment.  And  it  is  also 
impossible  that  they  should  not  be,  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  just.  It  is  true  of  the  wisest,  and  the  best,  and 
the  most  thoughtful  of  our  species  that  they  are  so  con- 
stituted as  not  deeply  to  realize  the  importance  of 
interests  which  affect  them  not  at  all  or  very  remotely. 
Every  local  circle  of  States,  as  well  as  of  individuals, 
has  a  set  of  interests,  in  the  prosperity  of  which  the 
happiness  of  the  section  to  which  they  belong  is  iden- 
tified ;  in  relation  to  which  interests  the  hopes  and  the 
fears,  the  reasonings  and  the  schemes,  of  the  inhabitants 
of  such  sections  are  necessarily  fashioned  and  conducted. 
It  is  morally  impossible  that  those  concerned  in  such 
sectional  interests  should  not  look  with  some  degree  of 
jealousy  on  schemes  adopted  in  relation  to  those  inter- 
ests, and  prosecuted  by  men  a  majority  of  which  have 
a  very  remote  or  very  small  stake  in  them.  And  this 
jealousy  must  rise  to  an  extreme  height  when  the  course 
of  measures  adopted,  whether  they  have  relation  to  the 
management  or  the  protection  of  such  interests,  wholly 
contravene  the  opinions  and  the  practical  experience 
of  the  persons  immediately  concerned  in  them.  This 
course  of  reflection  has  a  tendency  to  illustrate  this 
idea,  that  as,  in  every  political  association,  it  is  of 


SPEECH   ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION.  297 

primary  importance  that  the  great  interests  of  each 
local  section  should  be  skilfully  and  honestly  managed 
and  protected,  so,  in  selecting  the  mode  and  means  of 
management  and  protection,  an  especial  regard  should 
be  had  to  the  content  and  rational  satisfaction  of  those 
most  deeply  concerned  in  such  sectional  interests. 
Theories  and  speculations  of  the  closet,  however  abun- 
dant in  a  show  of  wisdom,  are  never  to  be  admitted  to 
take  the  place  of  those  principles  of  conduct  in  which 
experience  has  shown  the  prosperity  and  safety  of  such 
interests  to  consist.  Practical  knowledge,  and  that 
sagacity  which  results  from  long  attention  to  great 
interests,  never  fail  to  inspire  a  just  self-confidence  in 
relation  to  those  interests,  —  a  confidence  not  to  be 
browbeaten  by  authority,  nor  circumvented  by  any 
abstract  reasoning.  And,  in  a  national  point  of  view, 
it  is  scarcely  of  more  importance  that  the  course  adopted 
should  be  wise  than  that  content  and  rational  satisfaction 
should  be  given. 

On  this  topic  of  locality,  I  shall  confine  myself  to  one 
or  two  very  plain  statements.  It  seems  sufficient  to 
observe  that  commerce  is,  from  the  nature  of  things, 
the  leading  interest  of  more  than  one-half,  and  that  it 
is  the  predominating  interest  of  more  than  one-third, 
of  the  people  of  these  United  States.  The  States  north 
of  the  Potomac  contain  nearly  four  millions  of  souls  ; 
and  surely  it  needs  no  proof  to  convince  the  most  casual 
observer  that  the  proportion  which  the  commercial 
interest  bears  to  the  other  interests  of  that  great  section 
of  the  Union  is  such  as  entitles  it  to  the  denomination 
of  a  leading  interest.  The  States  north  of  the  Hudson 
contain  nearly  two  and  a  half  millions  of  souls;  and 


298  SPEECH    ON   MARITIME    PROTECTION. 

surely  there  is  as  little  need  of  proof  to  show  that  the 
proportion  the  commercial  interest  bears  to  the  other 
interests  of  that  northern  section  of  the  Union  is  such 
as  entitles  it  there  to  the  denomination  of  a  predomi- 
nating interest.     In  all  the  country  between  the  Poto- 
mac and  the   Hudson,  the  interest  of  commerce  is  so 
great  in  proportion  to  the  other  interests  that  its  embar- 
rassment clogs  and  weakens  the  energy  of  every  other 
description  of  industry.     Yet  the  agricultural  and  man- 
ufacturing interests  of  this  section  are  of  a  nature  and 
a  magnitude,  both  in  respect  of  the  staples  of  the  one 
and   the  objects  of  the  other,  as  render  them  in  a  very 
considerable    degree    independent   of    the    commercial. 
And  although  they  feel  the  effect  of  the  obstruction  of 
commerce,  the    feeling   may  be  borne  for  a  long  time 
without  much  individual  suffering,  or  any  general  dis- 
tress.    But  in  the   country  north  of  the  Hudson,  the 
proportion    and    connections   of   these    great    interests 
are  different.     Both  agriculture  and  manufactures  have 
there  grown  up  in  more  intimate  relation  to  commerce. 
The  industry  of  that  section  has  its  shape  and  energy 
from  commercial  prosperity.     To  the  construction,  the 
supply,  and  the  support  of  navigation,  its  manufactures 
have  a  direct  or  indirect  reference.     And  it  is  not  very 
different  with  its  agriculture.     A  country  divided  into 
small  farms,  among  a  population  great  compared  with 
its  extent,  requires  quick  circulation  and  easy  processes 
in  the   exchange  of  its  commodities.     This  can  only  be 
obtained  by  an  active  and  prosperous  commerce. 

In  order  more  clearly  to  apprehend  the  locality  of  the 
commercial  interest,  cast  your  eyes  upon  the  abstract  of 
tonnage  lately  laid  upon  our  tables,  according  to  annual 


SPEECH   ON  MARITIME   PROTECTION.  299 

custom,  by  the  Secretary  of  our  Treasury.     It  will  be 
found  that 

TONS. 

The  aggregate  tonnage  of  the  United  States  is  .     .  1,424,000 

Of  this  there  is  owned  between  the  Mississippi  and  — 

the  Potomac 221,000 

Between  the  Potomac  and  the  Hudson,      ....  321,000 

And  north  of  the  Hudson, 882,000 


If  this  tonnage  be  estimated,  new  and  old,  as  it  may 
without  extravagance,  at  an  average  value  of  fifty 
dollars  the  ton  :  — 

The  total  aggregate  value  of  the  tonnage  of  the 
United  States  may  be  stated,  in  round  numbers, 
at $70,000,000 

Of  which  four-sevenths   are  owned  north  of  the     

Hudson,  equal  to 40,000,000 

Two-sevenths  are  owned  between  the  Hudson  and 

the  Potomac,  equal  to 20,000,000 

One-seventh  is  owned  south  of  the  Potomac,  equal 

to 10,000,000 


$70,000,000 

To  place  the  locality  of  this  interest  in  a  light  still 
more  striking  and  impressive,  I  state  that  it  appears  by 
that  abstract  that  the  single  State  of  Massachusetts 
alone,  possesses  nearly  half  a  million  of  tonnage.  Pre- 
cisely, in  round  numbers,  four  hundred  and  ninety-six 
thousand  tons ;  an  amount  of  tonnage  equal,  within 
fifty  thousand  tons,  to  the  whole  'tonnage  owned  by  all 
the  States  south  of  the  Hudson. 

I  refer  to  this  excessive  disproportion  between  the 
tonnage  owned  in  different  States  and  sections  of  the 


300  SPEECH    ON   MAE1TIME   PROTECTION. 

United  States  rather  as  a  type  than  as  an  estimate  of 
the  greatness  of  the  comparative  disproportion  of  the 
whole  commercial  interest  in  those  respective  States  and 
sections.  The  truth  is,  this  is  much  greater  than  the 
proportion  of  tonnage  indicates,  inasmuch  as  the  capital 
and  the  industry  occupied  in  finding  employment  for  this 
great  amount  of  tonnage  are  almost  wholly  possessed 
by  the  sections  of  the  country  to  which  that  tonnage 
belongs.  A  satisfactory  estimate  of  the  value  of  that 
capital  and  industry  would  require  a  minuteness  of 
detail  little  reconcilable  either  with  your  patience  or 
with  the  necessity  of  the  present  argument.  Enough 
has  been  said  to  convince  any  one  who  will  take  the 
trouble  to  reflect  upon  the  subject  that  the  interest  is, 
in  its  nature,  eminently  local ;  that  it  is  impossible  it 
can  be  systematically  abandoned  without  convulsing 
that  whole  section  of  country  ;  and  that  the  States  in- 
terested in  this  commerce,  so  vital  to  their  prosperity, 
have  a  right  to  claim  and  ought  not  to  be  content  with 
less  than  efficient  protection. 

The  imperious  nature  of  this  duty  will  be  still  farther 
enforced  by  considering  the  greatness  of  this  interest. 
In  doing  this,  I  prefer  to  present  a  single  view  of  it, 
lest,  by  distracting  the  attention  to  a  great  variety  of 
particulars,  the  effect  of  the  whole  should  be  lost  in  the 
multitude  of  details.  Let  us  inquire  into  the  amount 
of  property  annually  exposed  to  maritime  depredation 
and  what  the  protection  of  it  is  worth  to  the  nation 
which  is  its  proprietor.  An  estimate  of  this  kind  must 
necessarily  be  very  loose  and  general.  But  it  will  be 
sufficiently  accurate  to  answer  all  the  purposes  of  the 
argument.  For  the  subject  is  of  that  massive  character 


SPEECH   ON  MARITIME   PROTECTION.  801 

that  a  mistake  of  many  millions  makes  no  material  alter- 
ation in  the  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  statement. 

The  total  export  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
treasury  year,  ending  on  the  first  day  of  Octo- 
ber, 1807,  was  $108,000,000.  That  of  the 
year  ending  the  first  of  October,  1811,  was 
$61,000,000.  The  average  value  exceeds 
$80,000,000.  But  to  avoid  all  cavil  I  state 
the  annual  average  value  of  exports  of  the 

United  States  at $70,000,000 

To  this  add  the  annual  average  value  of  the 
shipping  of  the  United  States,  which,  new  and 
old,  cannot  be  less  than  $50  the  ton,  and  on 
one  million  four  hundred  thousand  tons  is  also  70,000,000 
To  this  add  the  average  annual  value  of  freight, 
out  and  home,  which,  calculated  on  voyages  of 
all  descriptions,  may  be  fairly  stated  at  $70  the 

ton,  and  is 98,000,000 

For  this  estimate  of  the  value  of  freight  and 
tonnage,  I  am  indebted  to  an  honorable  friend  and 
colleague    (Mr.   Reed),    whose    information    and 
general  intelligence  concerning  commercial    sub- 
jects are,  perhaps,  not  exceeded  by  those  of  any 
gentleman  in  either  branch  of  Congress. 
To  this  add  the  total  average  value  of  property 
annually  at  risk   in  our  coasting  trade,  which 
cannot  be  less  than  and  probably  far  exceeds  .     100,000,000 
Our  seamen  are  also  the  subjects  of  annual  ex- 
posure.    The  value  of  this  hardy,  industrious, 
and  generous  race  of  men  is  not  to  be  esti- 
mated in  money.     The  pride,  the  hope,  and,  if 
you   would  permit,  the  bulwark  of  this  com- 
mercial community,  are  not  to  be  put  into  the 
scale  against  silver  or  gold  in  any  moral  or 


Amount  carried  forward $338,000,000 


302  SPEECH   ON  MARITIME  PROTECTION. 

Amount  brought  forward $338,000,000 

political  estimate.  Yet,  for  the  present  object, 
I  may  be  permitted  to  state  the  value  of  the 
skill  and  industry  of  these  freemen  to  their 
country,  at  $500  each,  which,  on  120,000  sea- 
men, the  unquestionable  number  is  ....  60,000,000 


Making  a  gross  aggregate  of $398,000,000 

Although  I  have  no  question  of  the  entire  correctness 
of  this  calculation,  yet,  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  every 
objection  which  might  arise  in  relation  to  the  value  of 
freight  or  tonnage,  I  put  out  of  the  question  ninety-eight 
millions  of  the  above  estimate,  and  state  the  amount  of 
annual  maritime  exposure  at  only  three  hundred  millions 
of  dollars. 

To  this  must  be  added  the  value  of  the  property  oil 
our  seaboard,  of  all  the  lives  of  our  citizens,  and  of  all 
the  cities  and  habitations  on  the  coast,  exposed  to 
instant  insult  and  violation  from  the  most  contemptible 
maritime  plunderer.  No  man  can  think  that  I  am 
extravagant  if  I  add,  on  this  account,  an  amount  equal 
to  that  annually  exposed  at  sea,  and  state  the  whole 
amount  of  maritime  and  sea-coast  exposure  in  round 
numbers  at  six  hundred  millions  of  dollars. 

I  am  aware  that  this  estimate  falls  short  of  the  reality. 
1  know  that  the  safety  of  our  domestic  hearths  and  our 
altars,  and  the  security  of  all  the  dear  and  tender  objects 
of  affection  and  duty  which  surround  them,  are  beyond 
the  reach  of  pecuniary  estimates.  But  I  lay  those  con- 
siderations out  of  the  question,  and  simply  inquire  what 
is  the  worth  of  a  rational  degree  of  security  in  time  of 
war  for  such  an  amount  of  property,  considering  it 
merely  as  an  interest  to  be  insured  at  the  market  rate 


SPEECH   ON  MARITIME   PROTECTION.  303 

of  the  worth  of  protection.  Suppose  an  individual  had 
such  a  property  at  risk,  which  in  time  of  peace  was  sub- 
ject to  so  much  plunder  and  insult,  and  in  time  of  war 
was  liable  to  be  swept  away,  would  he  not  be  deemed 
unwise,  or  rather  absolutely  mad,  if  he  neglected,  at  the 
annual  sacrifice  of  one  or  two  or  even  three  per  cent,  to 
obtain  for  this  property  a  very  high  degree  of  security,  — 
as  high  perhaps,  as  the  divine  will  permits  man  to  enjoy 
in  relation  to  the  possessions  of  this  life,  which,  accord- 
ing to  the  fixed  dispensations  of  his  Providence,  are 
necessarily  uncertain  and  transitory  ?  But  suppose  that 
instead  of  one,  two,  or  three  per  cent,  he  could,  by  the 
regular  annual  application  of  two-thirds  of  one  per  cent 
upon  the  whole  amount  of  the  property  at  risk,  obtain  a 
security  thus  high  and  desirable,  to  what  language  of 
wonder  and  contempt  would  such  an  individual  subject 
himself  who,  at  so  small  a  sacrifice,  should  refuse  or 
neglect  to  obtain  so  important  a  blessing  ?  What,  then, 
shall  be  said  of  a  nation  thus  neglecting  and  thus  refus- 
ing, when  to  it  attach  not  only  all  the  considerations  of 
interest  and  preservation  of  property  which  belong  to 
the  individual,  but  other,  and  far  higher  and  more  im- 
pressive, —  such  as  the  maintenance  of  its  peace,  of  its 
honor  ;  the  safety  of  the  lives  of  its  citizens,  of  its  sea- 
board from  devastation,  and  even  perhaps  of  its  children 
and  females  from  massacre  or  brutal  violence  ?  Is  there 
any  language  of  contempt  and  detestation  too  strong  for 
such  blind  infatuation,  such  palpable  improvidence  ? 
For  let  it  be  remembered  that  two-thirds  of  one  per 
cent,  upon  the  amount  of  property  thus  annually  ex- 
posed, is  four  millions  of  dollars,  the  annual  systematic 
appropriation  of  which  amount  would  answer  all  the 


304  SPEECH    ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION. 

purposes  and  hopes  of  commerce  of  your  cities  and  sea- 
board. 

But,  perhaps,  the  greatness  of  this  interest  and  our 
pecuniary  ability  to  protect  it  may  be  made  more  strik- 
ingly apparent  by  a  comparison  of  our  commerce  with 
that  of  Great  Britain  in  the  single  particular  of  export. 

I  state,  then,  as  a  fact  of  which  any  man  may  satisfy 
himself  by  a  reference  to  M'Pherson's  "  Annals  of  Com- 
merce," where  the  tables  of  British  export  may  be  found, 
that,  taking  the  nine  years  prior  to  the  war  of  our  Revo- 
lution, from  1766  to  1774  inclusive,  the  total  average 
export  of  Great  Britain  was  sixteen  million  pounds  ster- 
ling, equal  to  seventy-one  million  dollars,  —  an  amo-unt 
less  by  ten  million  of  dollars  than  the  present  total  aver- 
age export  of  the  United  States. 

And  again,  taking  the  nine  years  beginning  with  1789, 
and  ending  with  1797  inclusive,  the  total  average  annual 
export  of  Great  Britain  was  twenty-four  million  pounds 
sterling,  equal  to  one  hundred  and  six  million  dollars, 
which  is  less  by  two  millions  of  dollars  than  the  total 
export  of  the  United  States  in  1807.  It  is  true  that 
this  is  the  official  value  of  the  British  export,  and  that 
the  real  value  is  somewhat  higher,  perhaps  thirty  per 
cent.  This  circumstance,  although  it  in  a  degree  dimin- 
ishes the  approximation  of  the  American  to  the  British 
commerce  in  point  of  amount,  does  not  materially  affect 
the  argument.  Upon  the  basis  of  her  commerce,  Great 
Britain  maintains  a  maritime  force  of  eight  hundred  or 
a  thousand  vessels  of  war.  And  will  it  be  seriously 
contended  that,  upon  the  basis  of  a  commerce,  like  ours, 
thus  treading  upon  the  heels  of  British  greatness,  we  are 
absolutely  without  the  ability  of  maintaining  the  security 


SPEECH   ON  MARITIME   PROTECTION.  305 

of  our  sea-board,  the  safety  of  our  cities  and  the  unob- 
structed course  of  our  coasting  trade  ? 

By  recurring  to  the  permanency  of  this  interest,  the 
folly  and  madness  of  this  negligence,  and  misplaced 
meanness,  for  it  does  not  deserve  the  name  of  economy, 
will  be  still  more  distinctly  exhibited.  If  this  com- 
merce were  the  mushroom  growth  of  a  night,  if  it  had 
its  vigor  from  the  temporary  excitement  and  the  accu- 
mulated nutriment  which  warring  elements  in  Europe 
had  swept  from  the  places  of  their  natural  deposit,  then, 
indeed,  there  might  be  some  excuse  for  a  temporizing 
policy  touching  so  transitory  an  interest.  But  com- 
merce, in  the  Eastern  States,  is  of  no  foreign  growth, 
and  of  no  adventitious  seed.  Its  root  is  of  a  fibre  which 
almost  two  centuries  have  nourished.  And  the  per- 
petuity of  its  destiny  is  written,  in  legible  characters, 
as  well  in  the  nature  of  the  country  as  in  the  disposi- 
tions of  its  inhabitants.  Indeed,  sir,  look  along  your 
whole  coast,  from  Passamaquody  to  Cap'es  Henry  and 
Charles,  and  behold  the  deep  and  far-winding  creeks  and 
inlets,  the  noble  basins,  the  projecting  headlands,  the  ma- 
jestic rivers,  and  those  sounds  and  bays,  which  are  more 
like  inland  seas  than  like  any  thing  called  by  those  names 
in  other  quarters  of  the  globe.  Can  any  man  do  this, 
and  not  realize  that  the  destiny  of  the  people  inhabiting 
such  a  country  is  essentially  maritime  ?  Can  any  man 
do  this  without  being  impressed  by  the  conviction  that, 
although  the  poor  projects  of  politicians  may  embarrass 
for  a  time  the  dispositions  growing  out  of  the  condition 
of  such  a  country,  yet  that  nature  will  be  too  strong  for 
cobweb  regulations,  and  will  vindicate  her  rights  with 
certain  effect,  perhaps  with  awful  perils  ?  No  nation 

20 


306  SPEECH   ON   MARITIME    PROTECTION. 

ever  did,  or  ever  ought  to,  resist  such  allurements  and 
invitations  to  a  particular  mode  of  industry.  The  pur- 
poses of  Providence,  relative- to  the  destination  of  men, 
are  to  be  gathered  from  the  circumstances  in  which  his 
beneficence  has  placed  them.  And  to  refuse  to  make 
use  of  the  means  of  prosperity  which  his  goodness  has 
put  into  our  hands,  what  is  it  but  spurning  at  his  bounty, 
and  rejecting  the  blessings  which  his  infinite  wisdom 
has  designated  for  us  by  the  very  nature  of  his  allot- 
ments '?  The  employments  of  industry,  connected  writh 
navigation  and  commercial  enterprise,  are  precious  to 
the  people  of  that  quarter  of  the  country  by  ancient 
prejudice,  not  less  than  by  recent  profit.  The  occupa- 
tion is  rendered  dear  and  venerable  by  all  the  cherished 
associations  of  our  infancy  and  all  the  sage  and  pruden- 
tial maxims  of  our  ancestors.  And,  as  to  the  lessons  of 
encouragement  derived  from  recent  experience,  what 
nation  ever,  within  a  similar  period,  received  so  many 
that  were  sweet  and  salutary?  What  nation,  in  so 
short  a  time,  ever  before  ascended  to  such  a  height  of 
commercial  greatness  ? 

It  has  been  said,  by  some  philosophers  of  the  other 
hemisphere,  that  nature  in  this  new  world  had  worked 
by  a  sublime  scale ;  that  our  mountains  and  rivers  and 
lakes  were,  beyond  all  comparison,  greater  than  any 
thing  the  old  world  could  boast ;  that  she  had  here  made 
nothing  diminutive  except  its  animals.  And  ought  we 
not  to  fear  lest  the  bitterness  of  this  sarcasm  should  be 
concentrated  on  our  country  by  a  course  of  policy 
wholly  unworthy  of  the  magnitude  and  nature  of  the 
interests  committed  to  our  guardianship  ?  Have  we 
not  reason  to  fear  that  some  future  cynic,  with  an 


SPEECH    ON   MARITIME    PROTECTION.  807 

asperity  which  truth  shall  make  piercing,  will  declare 
that  all  things  in  these  United  States  are  great  except 
its  statesmen ;  and  that  we  are  pigmies  to  whom  Provi- 
dence has  intrusted,  for  some  inscrutable  purpose, 
gigantic  labors  ?  Can  we  deny  the  justice  of  such 
severity  of  remark,  if,  instead  of  adopting  a  scale  of 
thought  and  a  standard  of  action  proportionate  to  the 
greatness  of  our  trust  and  the  multiplied  necessities  of 
the  people,  we  bring  to  our  task  the  mere  measures 
of  professional  industry,  and  mete  out  contributions  for 
national  safety  by  our  fee-tables,  our  yardsticks,  and 
our  gill-pots  ?  Can  we  refrain  from  subscribing  to  the 
truth  of  such  censure,  if  we  do  not  rise,  in  some  degree, 
to  the  height  of  our  obligations;'  and  teach  ourselves  to 
conceive,  and  with  the  people  to  realize,  the  vastness 
of  those  relations  which  are  daily  springing  among 
States  which  are  not  so  much  one  empire  as  a  congre- 
gation of  empires  ? 

Having  concluded  what  I  intended  to  suggest  in 
relation  to  the  nature  of  the  interest  to  be  protected,  I 
proceed  to  consider  the  nature  of  the  protection  which 
it  is  our  duty  to  extend. 

And  here,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  necessitated  to  make 
an  observation  which  is  so  simple  and  so  obvious  that, 
were  it  not  for  the  arguments  urged  against  the  princi- 
ple of  maritime  protection,  I  should  have  deemed  the 
mere  mention  of  it  to  require  an  apology.  The  remark 
is  this,  that  rights  in  their  nature  local  can  only  be 
maintained  where  they  exist,  and  not  where  they  do 
not  exist.  If  you  had  a  field  to  defend  in  Georgia,  it 
would  be  very  strange  to  put  up  a  fence  in  Massa- 
chusetts. And  yet  how  does  this  differ  from  invading 


308  SPEECH   ON   MARITIME   PEOTECTION. 

Canada,  for  the  purpose  of  defending  our  maritime 
rights  ?  I  beg  not  to  be  understood,  Mr.  Speaker,  by 
this  remark  as  intending  to  chill  the  ardor  for  the 
Canada  expedition.  It  is  very  true  that,  to  possess 
ourselves  of  the  Canadas  and  Nova  Scotia  and  their 
dependencies,  it  would  cost  these  United  States,  at  the 
least  estimate,  fifty  millions  of  dollars  ;  and  that  Great 
Britain  —  national  pride,  and  her  pledge  of  protection  to 
the  people  of  that  country,  being  put  out  of  the  ques- 
tion —  would  sell  you  the  whole  territory  for  half  the 
money.  I  make  no  objection,  however,  on  this  account. 
On  the  contrary,  for  the  purposes  of  the  present  argu- 
ment, I  may  admit  that  pecuniary  calculation  ought  to 
be  put  out  of  the  field  when  spirit  is  to  be  shown  or 
honor  vindicated.  I  only  design  to  inquire  how  our 
maritime  rights  are  protected  by  such  invasion.  Sup- 
pose that,  in  every  land  project,  you  are  successful. 
Suppose  both  the  Canadas,  Quebec,  Halifax,  every 
thing  to  the  North  Pole  yours  by  fair  conquest.  Are 
your  rights  on  the  ocean  therefore  secure  ?  Does  your 
flag  float  afterwards  in  honor  ?  Are  your  seamen  safe 
from  impressment  ?  Is  your  course  along  the  highway 
of  nations  unobstructed  ?  No  one  pretends  it.  No  one 
has  or  can  show,  by  any  logical  deduction  or  any  detail 
of  facts,  that  the  loss  of  those  countries  would  so  de- 
press Great  Britain  as  to  induce  her  to  abandon  for  one 
hour  any  of  her  maritime  pretensions.  What,  then, 
results  ?  Why,  sir,  what  is  palpable  as  the  day,  that 
maritime  rights  are  only  to  be  maintained  by  maritime 
means.  This  species  of  protection  must  be  given,  or 
all  clamor  about  maritime  rights  will  be  understood  by 
the  people  interested  in  them  to  be  hollow  or  false,  or, 


SPEECH   ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION.  309 

what  is  worse,  an  intention  to  co-operate  with  the 
enemies  of  our  commerce  in  a  still  farther  embarrass- 
ment of  it. 

While  I  am  on  this  point,  I  cannot  refrain  from  notic- 
ing a  strange  solecism  which  seems  to  prevail  touching 
the  term  "  flag."  It  is  talked  about  as  though  there 
was  something  mystical  in  its  very  nature  ;  as  though 
a  rag,  with  certain  stripes  and  stars  upon  it,  tied  to  a 
stick  and  called  a  flag  was  a  wizard's  wand,  and  entailed 
security  on  every  thing  under  it  or  within  its  sphere. 
There  is  nothing  like  all  this  in  the  nature  of  the  thing. 
A  flag  is  the  evidence  of  power.  A  land  flag  is  the 
evidence  of  land  power.  A  maritime  flag  is  the  evi- 
dence of  maritime  power.  You  may  have  a  piece  of 
bunting  upon  a  staff,  and  call  it  a  flag :  but,  if  you  have 
no  maritime  power  to  maintain  it,  you  have  a  name  and 
no  reality  ;  you  have  the  shadow  without  the  substance  ; 
you  have  the  sign  of  a  flag,  but  in  truth  you  have  no 
flag. 

In  considering  this  subject  of  maritime  protection,  I 
shall  recur  to  the  nature  and  degree  of  it  and  to  our 
capacity  to  extend  it.  And  here  we  are  always  met, 
at  the  very  threshold,  with  this  objection :  "  A  naval 
force  requires  much  time  to  get  it  into  readiness,  and 
the  exigency  will  be  past  before  the  preparation  can  be 
completed."  Thus  want  of  foresight  in  times  past  is 
made  an  apolog}^  for  want  of  foresight  in  the  time 
present.  We  were  unwise  in  the  beginning,  and  unwise 
we  resolve  to  continue  until  the  end  of  the  chapter. 
We  refuse  to  do  any  thing  until  the  moment  of  exi- 
gency, and  then  it  is  too  late.  Thus  our  improvidence 
is  made  sponsor  for  our  disinclination.  But  what  is  the 


310  SPEECH   ON  MARITIME   PROTECTION. 

law  of  nature  and  the  dictates  of  wisdom  on  this  sub- 
ject ?  The  casualties  of  life,  the  accidents  to  which 
man  is  exposed,  are  the  modes  established  by  Providence 
for  his  instruction.  This  is  the  law  of  our  nature. 
Hence  it  is  that  adversity  is  said  to  keep  a  school  for 
certain  people  who  will  learn  in  no  other.  Hence,  too, 
the  poet  likens  it  to  "  a  toad  ugly  and  venomous,  which 
bears  a  precious  jewel  in  its  head."  And  in  another 
place,  but  with  the  same  general  relation,  "out  of  this 
nettle  danger,  we  pluck  the  flower  safety."  This  law 
is  just  as  relative  to  nations  as  it  is  to  individuals.  For, 
notwithstanding  all  the  vaunting  of  statesmen,  their 
whole  business  is  to  apply  an  enlarged  common-sense 
to  the  affairs  intrusted  to  their  management.  It  is  as 
much  the  duty  of  the  rulers  of  a  State,  as  it  is  that  of 
an  individual,  to  learn  wisdom  from  misfortune,  and  to 
draw,  from  every  particular  instance  of  adversity,  those 
maxims  of  conduct  by  the  collection  and  application  of 
which  our  intellectual  and  moral  natures  are  distin- 
guished and  elevated.  In  all  cases  of  this  kind,  the 
inquiry  ought  to  be,  Is  this  exigency  peculiar,  or  is  it 
general  ?  Is  it  one  in  which  human  effort  is  unavailing, 
and  therefore  requires  only  the  exercise  of  a  resignation 
and  wise  submission  to  the  divine  will?  or  is  it  one 
which  skill  or  power  may  limit  or  obviate  ?  On  the 
result  of  this  inquiry  our  obligations  depend.  For  when 
man  conducts  toward  a  general  evil  as  though  it  were 
peculiar  ;  or  when,  through  ignorance  or  pusillanimity, 
he  neglects  to  use  the  means  of  relief  or  prevention  to 
the  extent  in  which  he  possesses  them  ;  if  he  stretches 
himself  out  in  a  stupid  languor,  and  refuses  to  do  any 
thing,  because  he  finds  he  cannot  do  every  thing,  — 


SPEECH   ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION.  311 

then,  indeed,  all  his  clamors  against  the  course  of 
nature,  or  the  conduct  of  others,  are  but  artifices  by 
which  he  would  conceal  from  the  world,  perhaps  from 
himself,  the  texture  of  his  own  guilt.  His  misfortunes 
are,  in  such  case,  his  crimes.  Let  them  proceed  from 
what  source  they  will,  he  is  himself,  at  least,  a  half- 
worker  in  the  fabric  of  his  own  miseries. 

Mr.  Speaker,  can  any  one  contemplate  the  exigency 
which  at  this  day  depresses  our  country,  and  for  one 
moment  deem  it  peculiar  ?  The  degree  of  such  com- 
mercial exigencies  may  vary,  but  they  must  always  exist. 
It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  such  a  population  as  is  that 
of  the  Atlantic  States  can  be  either  driven  or  decoyed 
from  the  ocean  ?  It  is  just  as  absurd  to  imagine  that 
wealth  will  not  invite  cupidity,  and  that  weakness  will 
not  insure  both  insult  and  plunder.  The  circumstances 
of  our  age  make  this  truth  signally  impressive.  Who  does 
not  see  in  the  conduct  of  Europe  a  general  departure 
from  those  common  principles  which  once  constituted 
national  morality  ?  What  is  safe  which  power  can  seize 
or  ingenuity  can  circumvent  ?  or  what  truths  more  pal- 
pable than  these,  —  that  there  is  no  safety  for  national 
rights  but  in  the  national  arm ;  and  that  important 
interests  systematically  pursued  must  be  systematically 
protected  ? 

Touching  the  nature  and  degree  of  that  maritime 
protection  which  it  may  be  wise  in  this  nation  to  extend 
to  its  maritime  interests,  it  seems  to  me  that  our  exer- 
tions should  rather  be  excited  than  graduated  by  the 
present  exigency ;  that  our  duty  is  to  inquire,  upon  a 
general  scale,  what  our  commercial  citizens  have,  in  this 
respect,  a  right  to  claim  ;  and  what  is  the  unquestion- 


312  SPEECH   ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION. 

able  obligation  of  a  commercial  nation  to  so  great  a 
class  of  its  interests.  For  this  purpose  my  observations 
will  have  reference  rather  to  the  principles  of  the  sys- 
tem than  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill  now  under  debate. 
Undoubtedly  an  appropriation  for  the  building  of  ten 
or  any  other  additional  number  of  frigates  would  be  so 
distinct  a  manifestation  of  the  intention  of  the  national 
legislature  to  extend  to  commerce  its  natural  protection 
as  in  itself  to  outweigh  any  theoretic  preference  for  a 
maritime  force  of  a  higher  character.  I  cannot,  there- 
fore, but  cordially  support  an  appropriation  for  a  species 
of  protection  so  important  and  desirable.  Yet,  in  an 
argument  having  relation  to  the  system  rather  than  to 
the  occasion,  I  trust  I  shall  have  the  indulgence  of  the 
House  if  my  course  of  reflections  should  take  a  wider 
range  than  the  propositions  on  the  table,  and  embrace 
within  the  scope  of  remark  the  general  principles  by 
which  the  nature  and  degree  of  systematic  naval  pro- 
tection should  in  my  judgment  be  regulated. 

Here  it  seems  hardly  necessary  to  observe  that  a 
main  object  of  all  protection  is  satisfaction  to  the  per- 
sons whose  interests  are  intended  to  be  protected  ;  and 
to  this  object  a  peculiar  attention  ought  to  be  paid  when 
it  happens  that  the  majority  of  the  rulers  of  a  nation  are 
composed  of  persons  not  immediately  concerned  in 
those  interests,  and  not  generally  suspected  of  having 
an  overweening  attachment  to  them.  In  such  a  state  of 
things  it  is  peculiarly  important  that  the  course  of  con-- 
duct adopted  should  be  such  as  to  indicate  systematic 
intention  as  to  the  end,  and  wise  adaptation  as  to  the 
means.  For  in  no  other  way  can  that  satisfaction  of 
which  I  speak  result,  and  which  is,  in  a  national  point  of 


SPEECH   ON   MARITIME  PROTECTION.  313 

view,  at  the  same  time  one  of  the  most  important 
objects  of  government,  and  one  of  the  most  certain 
evidences  of  its  wisdom ;  for  men  interested  in  protec- 
tion will  always  deem  themselves  the  best  judges  of  the 
nature  of  that  protection.  And  as  such  men  can  never 
be  content  with  any  thing  short  of  efficient  protection, 
according  to  the  nature  of  the  object,  so  instinct  not  less 
than  reason  will  instruct  them  whether  the  means  you 
employ  are  in  their  nature  real  .or  illusory.  Now,  in 
order  to  know  what  will  give  this  satisfaction  to  the 
persons  interested,  so  desirable  both  to  them  and  to 
the  nation,  it  is  necessary  to  know  the  nature  and  grada- 
tion in  value  of  those  interests,  and  to  extend  protec- 
tion, not  so  much  with  a  lavish  as  with  a  discriminating 
and  parental  hand.  If  it  happen  in  respect  of  any 
interest,  as  it  is  acknowledged  on  all  sides  it  is  at 
present  the  case  with  the  commercial,  that  it  cannot  be 
protected  against  all  the  world,  to  the  utmost  of  its 
greatness  and  dispersion,  then  the  inquiry  occurs,  what 
branch  of  this  interest  is  most  precious  to  commercial 
men,  and  what  is  the  nature  of  that  protection  which 
will  give  to  it  the  highest  degree  of  certainty  of  which 
its  nature  is  susceptible  ?  It  has  been  by  the  result  of 
these  two  inquiries,  in  my  mind,  that  its  opinion  has 
been  determined  concerning  the  objects  and  the  degree 
of  protection. 

Touching  that  branch  of  interest  which  is  most 
precious  to  commercial  men,  it  is  impossible  that  there 
can  be  any  mistake ;  for  however  dear  the  interests  of 
property  or  of  life  exposed  upon  the  ocean  may  be  to 
their  owners  or  their  friends,  yet  the  safety  of  our 
altars  and  of  our  firesides,  of  our  cities  and  of  our  sea- 


314  SPEECH   ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION. 

board,  must,  from  the  nature  of  things,  be  entwined 
into  the  affections  by  ties  incomparably  more  strong  and 
tender.  And  it  happens  that  both  national  pride  and 
honor  are  peculiarly  identified  with  the  support  of  these 
primary  objects  of  commercial  interest. 

It  is  in  this  view  I  state  that  the  first  and  most  im- 
portant object  of  the  nation  ought  to  be  such  a  naval 
force  as  shall  give  such  a  degree  of  rational  security  as 
the  nature  of  the  subject  admits  to  our  cities,  and  sea- 
board, and  coasting  trade  ;  that  the  system  of  maritime 
protection  ought  to  rest  upon  this  basis ;  and  that  it 
should  not  attempt  to  go  further  until  these  objects  are 
secured.  And  I  have  no  hesitation  to  declare,  that 
until  such  a  maritime  force  be  systematically  maintained 
by  this  nation,  it  shamefully  neglects  its  most  important 
duties  and  most  critical  interests. 

With  respect  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  this  naval 
force  some  difference  of  opinion  may  arise,  according  to 
the  view  taken  of  the  primary  objects  of  protection. 
For  myself  I  consider  that  those  objects  are  first  to  be 
protected  in  the  safety  of  which  the  national  character 
and  happiness  are  most  deeply  interested ;  and  these 
are  chiefly  concerned,  beyond  all  question,  in  the  pres- 
ervation of  our  maritime  settlements  from  pillage  and 
our  coast  from  violence.  For  this  purpose  it  is  requisite 
that  there  should  be  a  ship  of  war  for  the  harbor  of 
every  great  city  of  the  United  States,  equal,  in  point  of 
force,  to  the  usual  grade  of  ships  of  the  line  of  the  mari- 
time belligerents.  These  ships  might  be  so  instructed 
as  to  act  singly  or  together  as  circumstances  might 
require.  My  reason  for  the  selection  of  this  species 
of  force  is,  that  it  puts  every  city  and  great  harbor  of 


SPEECH   ON  MARITIME  PROTECTION.  315 

the  United  States  in  a  state  of  security  from  the  insults, 
and  the  inhabitants  of  your  sea-coasts  from  the  depreda- 
tion, of  any  single  ship  of  war  of  any  nation.  To  these 
should  be  added  a  number  of  frigates  and  smaller 
vessels  of  war.  By  such  means  our  coasting  trade 
might  be  protected,  the  mouths  of  our  harbors  secured, 
in  particular  that  of  the  Mississippi,  from  the  buccaneers 
of  the  West  Indies,  and  hereafter,  perhaps,  from  those 
of  South  America.  A  system  of  protection  graduated 
upon  a  scale  so  conformable  to  the  nature  of  the  country 
and  to  the  greatness  of  the  commercial  interest,  would 
tend  to  quiet  that  spirit  of  jealousy  which  so  naturally 
and  so  justly  begins  to  spring  among  the  States.  Those 
interested  in  commerce  would  care  little  what  local 
influences  predominated^  or  how  the  ball  of  power 
vibrated  among  our  factions,  provided  an  efficient  pro- 
tection of  their  essential  interests,  upon  systematic 
principles,  was  not  only  secured  by  the  letter  of  the 
Constitution,  but  assured  by  a  spirit  pervading  every 
description  of  their  rulers. 

But  it  is  said  that  "  we  have  not  capacity  to  maintain 
such  a  naval  force.''  Is  it  want  of  pecuniary,  or  want 
of  physical  capacity  ?  In  relation  to  our  pecuniary 
capacity,  I  will  not  condescend  to  add  any  proof  to  that 
plain  statement  already  exhibited,  showing  that  we  have 
an  annual  commercial  exposure  equal  to  six  hundred 
millions  of  dollars,  and  that  two-thirds  of  one  per  cent 
upon  this  amount  of  value,  or  four  millions  of  dollars, 
is  more  than  is  necessary,  if  annually  and  systematically 
appropriated  for  this  great  object,  so  anxiously  and 
rightfully  desired  by  your  seaboard,  and  so  essential  to 
the  honor  and  obligations  of  the  nation.  I  will  only 


316  SPEECH    ON   MARITIME    PROTECTION. 

make  a  single  other  statement  by  way  of  illustrating 
the  smallness  of  the  annual  appropriations  necessary  for 
the  attainment  of  this  important  purpose.  The  annual 
appropriation  of  one-sixth  of  one  per  cent  on  the  amount 
of  the  value  of  the  whole  annual  commercial  exposure 
(one  million  of  dollars)  is  sufficient  to  build  in  two 
years  six  seventy-four  gun  ships  ;  and  taking  the  average 
expense,  in  peace  and  war,  the  annual  appropriation  of 
the  same  sum  is  sufficient  to  maintain  them  afterwards 
in  a  condition  for  efficient  service.  This  objection  of 
pecuniary  inability  may  be  believed  in  the  interior  coun- 
try where  the  greatness  of  the  commercial  property  and 
all  the  tender  obligations  connected  with  its  preserva- 
tion are  not  realized.  But  in  the  cities  and  in  the  com- 
mercial States  the  extent  of  the  national  resources  is 
more  truly  estimated.  They  know  the  magnitude  of 
the  interest  at  stake,  and  their  essential  claim  to  pro- 
tection. Why,  sir,  were  we  seriously  to  urge  this 
objection  of  pecuniary  incapacity  to  the  commercial 
men  of  Massachusetts  they  would  laugh  us  to  scorn. 
Let  me  state  a  single  fact.  In  the  year  1745,  the  State, 
then  the  colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  included  a  popu- 
lation of  220,000  souls  ;  and  yet,  in  that  infant  state  of 
the  country,  it  owned  a  fleet  consisting  of  three  ships,  — 
one  of  which  carried  twenty  guns,  —  three  snows,  one 
brig,  and  three  sloops,  being  an  aggregate  of  ten  vessels 
of  war.  These  partook  of  the  dangers  and  shared  in 
the  glory  of  that  expedition  which  terminated  with  the 
surrender  of  Louisburgh.  Comparing  the  population, 
the  extent  of  territory,  the  capital  and  all  the  other 
resources  of  this  great  nation,  with  the  narrow  means 
of  the  colony  of  Massachusetts  at  that  period  of  its 


SPEECH    ON    MARITIME   PROTECTION.  817 

history,  it  is  not  extravagant  to  assert  that  the  fleet  it 
then  possessed,  in  proportion  to  its  pecuniary  resources, 
was  greater  than  would  be,  in  proportion  to  the  resources 
of  the  United  States,  a  fleet  of  fifty  sail  of  the  line  and 
one  hundred  frigates.  With  what  language  of  wonder 
and  admiration  does  that  great  orator  and  prince  of 
moral  statesmen^  Edmund  Burke,  in  his  speech  for  con- 
ciliation with  America,  speak  of  the  commerce  and  en- 
terprise of  that  people !  "  When  we  speak  of  the 
commerce  with  our  colonies,  fiction  lags  after  truth  ; 
invention  is  unfruitful,  and  imagination  cold  and  barren." 
"  No  sea  but  what  is  vexed  by  their  fisheries  ;  no  climate 
that  is  not  witness  to  their  toils.  Neither  the  persever- 
ance of  Holland,  nor  the  activity  of  France,  nor  the 
dexterous  and  firm  sagacity  of  English  enterprise,  ever 
carried  this  most  perilous  mode  of  hard  industry  to  the 
extent  to  which  it  has  been  pushed  by  this  recent  peo- 
ple,—  a  people  who  are  still,  as  it  were,  but  in  the 
gristle,  and  not  yet  hardened  into  the  bone  of  man- 
hood." And  shall  the  descendants  of  such  a  people  be 
told  that  their  commercial  rights  are  not  worth  defend- 
ing, that  the  national  arm  is  not  equal  to  their  pro- 
tection ?  Arid  this,  too,  after  the  lapse  of  almost 
forty  years  has  added  an  extent  to  their  commerce 
beyond  all  parallel  in  history,  and  after  the  strength  and 
resources  associated  to  protect  them  exceed  in  point  of 
population  seven  millions  of  souls,  possessing  a  real  and 
personal  capital  absolutely  incalculable  ? 

Our  pecuniary  capacity,  then,  is  unquestionable  ;  but 
it  is  said  we  are  deficient  in  physical  power.  It  is 
strange  that  those  who  urge  this  objection  assert  it  only 
as  it  respects  Great  Britain,  and  admit,  either  expressly 


318  SPEECH    ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION. 

or  by  implication,  —  indeed,  they  cannot  deny,  —  that  it 
is  within  our  physical  capacity  to  maintain  our  maritime 
rights  against  every  other  nation.  Now,  let  it  be  granted 
that  we  have  such  an  utter  incapacity  in  relation  to  the 
British  naval  power  ;  grant  that  at  the  nod  of  that  nation 
we  must  abandon  the  ocean  to  the  very  mouths  of  our 
harbors,  na}7,  our  harbors  themselves.  What  then? 
Does  it  follow  that  a  naval  force  is  useless  ?  Because 
we  must  submit  to  have  our  rights  plundered  by  one 
power,  does  it  follow  that  we  must  be  tame  and  sub- 
missive to  every  other  ?  Look  at  the  fact.  We  have, 
within  these  ten  years,  lost  more  property  by  the  plun- 
der of  the  minor  naval  powers  of  Europe,  France  in- 
cluded, than  would  have  been  enough  to  have  built  and 
maintained  twice  the  number  of  ships  sufficient  for  our 
protection  against  their  depredations.  I  cannot  exceed 
the  fact  when  I  state  the  loss  within  that  period  by 
those  powers  at  thirty  millions  of  dollars.  Our  capacity 
to  defend  our  commerce  against  every  one  of  these 
powers  is  undeniable.  Because  we  cannot  maintain  our 
rights  against  the  strong,  shall  we  bear  insult  and  invite 
plunder  from  the  weak  ?  Because  there  is  one  levia- 
than in  the  ocean,  shall  every  shark  satiate  his  maw  on 
our  fatness  with  impunity  ? 

But  let  us  examine  this  doctrine  of  utter  inability  to 
maintain  our  maritime  rights  against  Great  Britain,  so 
obtrusively  and  vehemently  maintained  by  some  who. 
clamor  the  most  violently  against  her  insults  and  in- 
juries. If  the  project  were  to  maintain  our  maritime 
rights  against  that  mistress  of  the  sea  by  convoys 
spread  over  every  ocean,  there  would  indeed  be  some- 
thing ludicrously  fanciful  and  wild  in  the  proposition. 


SPEECH   ON   MARITIME  PROTECTION.  319 

But  nothing  like  this  is  either  proposed  or  desired.  The 
humility  of  commercial  hope  in  reference  to  that  nation 
rises  no  higher  than  the  protection  of  our  harbors,  the 
security  of  our  coasts  and  coasting  trade.  Is  it  possible 
that  such  a  power  as  this  shall  be  denied  to  exist  in  this 
nation  ?  If  it  exist,  is  it  possible  that  its  exercise  shall 
be  withheld  ? 

Look  at  the  present  state  of  our  harbors  and  sea- 
coast.  See  their  exposure  —  I  will  not  say  to  the  fleets  of 
Great  Britain,  but  to  any  single  ship  of  the  line,  to  any 
single  frigate,  to  any  single  sloop  of  war.  It  is  true 
the  policy  of  that  nation  induces  her  to  regard  your 
prohibitory  laws,  and  her  ships  now  seldom  visit  your 
ports.  But  suppose  her  policy  should  change  ;  suppose 
any  one  of  her  ships  of  war  should  choose  to  burn  any 
of  the  numerous  settlements  upon  your  sea-coast,  or  to 
plunder  the  inhabitants  of  it,  —  would  there  not  be  some 
security  to  those  exposed  citizens  if  a  naval  force  were 
lying  in  every  great  harbor  of  the  United  States  com- 
petent to  protect  or  avenge  the  aggression  of  any  single 
ship  of  war  of  whatever  force  ?  Would  not  the  knowl- 
edge of  its  existence  teach  the  naval  commanders  of 
that  nation  both  caution  and  respect  ?  It  is  worthy  of 
this  nation,  and  fully  within  its  capacity,  to  maintain 
such  a  force.  Not  a  single  sea-bull  should  put  his  head 
over  our  acknowledged  water-line  without  finding  a 
power  sufficient  to  take  him  by  the  horns. 

But  it  is  said  that,  "  in  case  of  actual  war  with  Great 
Britain,  our  ships  would  be  useless.  She  would  come 
and  take  them."  In  reply  to  this  objection,  I  shall  not 
recur  to  those  details  of  circumstances,  already  so  fre- 
quently stated,  which  would  give  our  ships  of  war, 


320  SPEECH   ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION. 

fighting  on  their  own  coasts  and  in  the  proximity  of 
relief  and  supply,  so  many  advantages  over  the  ships 
of  a  nation  obliged  to  come  three  thousand  miles  to 
the  combat.  But,  allowing  this  argument  from  British 
naval  superiority  its  full  force,  I  ask,  What  is  that 
temper  on  which  a  nation  can  most  safely  rely  in  the 
day  of  trial?  Is  it  that  which  takes  counsel  of  fear,  or 
that  which  listens  only  to  the  suggestions  of  duty  ?  Is 
it  that  which  magnifies  all  the  real  dangers  until  hope 
and  exertion  are  paralyzed  in  their  first  germinations  ? 
or  is  it  that  which  dares  to  attempt  noble  ends  by  appro- 
priate means ;  which,  wisely  weighing  the  nature  of 
any  anticipated  exigency,  prepares  according  to  its 
powers,  resolved  that,  whatever  else  it  may  want,  to 
itself  it  will  never  be  wanting  ?  Grant  all  that  is  said 
concerning  British  naval  superiority,  in  the  events  of 
war  has  comparative  weakness  nothing  to  hope  from 
opportunity  ?  Are  not  the  circumstances  in  which  this 
country  and  Great  Britain  would  be  placed,  relative  to 
naval  combats  upon  our  own  coast,  of  a  nature  to 
strengthen  the  hope  of  such  opportunity  ?  Is  it  of  no 
worth  to  a  nation  to  be  in  a  condition  to  avail  itself  of 
conjunctures  and  occurrences,  Mr.  Speaker?  Prepara- 
tion, in  such  cases,  is  every  thing.  All  history  is 
replete  with  the  truth  that  "  the  battle  is  not  always  to 
the  strong,  but  that  time  and  chance  happen  to  all." 
Suppose  that  Great  Britain  should  send  twelve  seventy- 
fours  to  burn  our  cities  or  lay  waste  our  coasts.  Might 
not  such  a  naval  force  be  dispersed  by  storms,  dimin- 
ished by  shipwrecks,  or  delayed  and  weakened  by  the 
events  of  the  voyage  ?  In  such  case,  would  it  be  noth- 
ing to  have  even  half  that  number  of  line-of-battle  ships, 


SPEECH   ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION.  321 

in  a  state  of  vigorous  preparation,  ready  to  take  the 
advantage  of  so  probable  a  circumstance,  and  so  provi- 
dential an  interposition  ?  The  adage  of  our  school-books 
is  as  true  in  relation  to  States  as  to  men  in  common 
life,  —  "  Heaven  helps  those  who  help  themselves." 
It  is  almost  a  law  of  nature.  God  grants  every  thing 
to  wisdom  and  virtue.  He  denies  every  thing  to  folly 
and  baseness.  But  suppose  the  worst.  Grant  that,  in 
a  battle  such  as  our  brave  seamen  would  fight  in  defence 
of  their  country,  our  naval  force  be  vanquished.  What 
then?  Did  enemies  ever  plunder  or  violate  more 
fiercely  when  weakened  and  crippled  by  the  effects  of 
a  hard-bought  victory  than  when  flushed,  their  veins 
full,  they  rush  upon  their  prey,  with  cupidity  stimu- 
lated by  contempt  ?  Did  any  foe  ever  grant  to  pusil- 
lanimity what  it  would  have  denied  to  prowess?  To 
be  conquered  is  not  always  to  be  disgraced.  The 
heroes  who  shall  perish  in  such  combats  shall  not  fall 
in  vain  for  their  country.  Their  blood  will  be  the  most 
precious,  as  well  as  the  strongest  cement  of  our  Union. 
What  is  it  that  constitutes  the  moral  tie  of  our  nation  ? 
Is  it  that  paper  contract  called  the  Constitution  ?  Why 
is  it  that  the  man  of  Virginia,  the  man  of  Carolina,  and 
the  man  of  Massachusetts,  are  dearer  to  each  other 
than  is  to  either  the  man  of  South  America  or  the 
West  Indies?  Locality  has  little  to  do  with  implanting 
this  inherent  feeling,  and  personal  acquaintance  less. 
Whence,  then,  does  it  result  but  from  that  moral  senti- 
ment which  pervades  all,  and  is  precious  to  all,  of 
having  shared  common  dangers  for  the  attainment  of 
common  blessings.  The  strong  ties  of  every  people  are 
those  which  spring  from  the  heart  and  twine  through 

21 


322  SPEECH   ON   MARITIME    PROTECTION. 

the  affections.  The  family  compact  of  the  States  has 
this  for  its  basis,  that  their  heroes  have  mingled  their 
blood  in  the  same  contests ;  that  all  have  a  common 
right  in  their  glory ;  that,  if  I  may  be  allowed  the 
expression,  in  the  temple  of  patriotism  all  have  the 
same  worship. 

But  it  is  inquired,  What  effect  will  this  policy  have 
upon  the  present  exigency  ?  I  answer,  The  happiest 
in  every  aspect.  To  exhibit  a  definitive  intent  to  main- 
tain maritime  rights  by  maritime  means,  what  is  it  but 
to  develop  new  stamina  of  national  character?  No 
nation  can  or  has  a  right  to  hope  respect  from  others 
which  does  not  first  learn  to  respect  itself.  And  how 
is  this  to  be  attained  ?  By  a  course  of  conduct  con- 
formable to  its  duties  and  relative  to  its  condition.  If 
it  abandons  what  it  ought  to  defend,  if  it  flies  from  the 
field  it  is  bound  to  maintain,  how  can  it  hope  for  honor  ? 
To  what  other  inheritance  is  it  entitled  but  disgrace  ? 
Foreign  nations,  undoubtedly,  look  upon  this  union 
with  eyes  long  read  in  the  history  of  man,  and  with 
thoughts  deeply  versed  in  the  effects  of  passion  and 
interest,  upon  independent  States  associated  by  ties  so 
apparently  slight  and  novel.  They  understand  well 
that  the  rivalries  among  the  great  interests  of  such 
States  ;  the  natural  envyings  which  in  all  countries 
spring  between  agriculture,  commerce,  and  manufact- 
ures ;  the  inevitable  jealousies  and  fears  of  each  other 
of  South  and  North,  interior  and  seaboard  ;  the  incipi- 
ent or  progressive  rancor  of  party  animosity,  —  are  the 
essential  weaknesses  of  sovereignties  thus  combined. 
Whether  these  causes  shall  operate,  or  whether  they 
shall  cease,  foreign  nations  will  gather  from  the  features 


SPEECH   ON  MARITIME  PROTECTION.  323 

of  our  policy.  They  cannot  believe  that  such  a  nation 
is  strong  in  the  affections  of  its  associated  parts  when 
they  see  the  vital  interests  of  whole  States  abandoned. 
But  reverse  this  policy ;  show  a  definitive  and  stable 
intent  to  yield  the  natural  protection  to  such  essential 
interests:  then  they  will  respect  you.  And  to  power- 
ful nations  honor  comes  attended  by  safety. 

Mr.  Speaker,  what  is  national  disgrace?  Of  what 
stuff  is  it  composed  ?  Is  a  nation  disgraced  because  its 
flag  is  insulted ;  because  its  seamen  are  impressed ; 
because  its  course  upon  the  highway  of  the  ocean  is 
obstructed  ?  No,  sir.  Abstractedly  considered,  all  this 
is  not  disgrace.  Because  all  this  may  happen  to  a 
nation  so  weak  as  not  to  be  able  to  maintain  the  dignity 
of  its  flag,  or  the  freedom  of  its  citizens,  or  the  safety  of 
its  course.  Natural  weakness  is  never  disgrace.  But, 
sir,  this  is  disgrace,  —  when  we  submit  to  insult  and  to 
injury  which  we  have  the  power  to  prevent  or  redress. 
Its  essential  constituents  are  want  of  sense  or  want 
of  spirit.  When  a  nation,  with  ample  means  for  its 
defence,  is  so  thick  in  the  brain  as  not  to  put  them  into 
a  suitable  state  of  preparation  ;  or  when,  with  sufficient 
muscular  force,  it  is  so  tame  in  spirit  as  to  seek  safety 
not  in  manly  effort,  but  in  retirement,  —  then  a  nation 
is  disgraced ;  then  it  shrinks  from  its  high  and  sovereign 
character  into  that  of  the  tribe  of  Issachar,  crouching 
down  between  two  burdens;  the  French  burden,  on 
the  one  side,  and  the  British  burden  on  the  other,  so 
dull,  so  lifeless,  so  stupid,  that,  were  it  not  for  its  bray- 
ing, it  could  not  be  distinguished  from  the  clod  of  the 
valley. 

It  is  impossible  for  European  nations  not  to  know 


324  SPEECH    ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION. 

that  we  are  the  second  commercial  country  in  the 
world  ;  that  we  have  more  than  seven  millions  of  peo- 
ple, with  less  -annual  expenditure  and  more  unpledged 
sources  of  revenue  than  any  nation  of  the  civilized 
world.  Yet  a  nation  thus  distinguished  —  abounding 
in  wealth,  in  enterprise,  and  in  power  —  is  seen  .flying 
away  from  "  the  unprofitable  contest ;  "  abandoning  the 
field  of  controversy ;  taking  refuge  behind  its  own 
doors,  and  softening  the  rigors  of  oppression  abroad  by 
a  comparison  with  worse  torments  at  home.  Ought 
such  a  nation  to  ask  for  respect  ?  Is  there  any  other 
mode  of  relief  from  this  depth  of  disgrace  than  by  a 
change  of  national  conduct  and  character? 

With  respect  to  Great  Britain,  it  seems  impossible 
that  such  a  change  in  our  policy  should  not  be  auspi- 
cious. No  nation  ever  did  or  ever  can  conduct  towards 
one  that  is  true  in  the  same  way  as  it  conducts  towards 
one  that  is  false  to  all  its  obligations.  Clear  conceptions 
of  interest  and  faithful  fulfilment  of  duty  as  certainly 
insure,  sooner  or  later,  honor  and  safety,  as  blindness 
to  interest  and  abandonment  of  duty  do  assuredly  entail 
disgrace  and  embarrassment.  In  relation  to  the  prin- 
ciple which  regulates  the  commercial  conduct  of  Great 
Britain  towards  the  United  States,  there  is  much  scope 
for  diversity  of  opinion.  Perhaps  those  judge  most 
truly  who  do  not  attribute  to  her  any  very  distinct  or 
uniform  system  of  action  in  relation  to  us,  but  who 
deem  her  course  to  result  from  views  of  temporary 
expediency,  growing  out  of  the  circumstances  of  the 
time  and  the  character  of  our  administration.  If  this 
be  the  case,  then  whatever  course  of  conduct  'has  a 
tendency  to  show  a  change  in  the  character  of  the 


SPEECH    ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION.  325 

American  policy  must  produce  a  proportionate  change 
in  that  of  the  British.  And  if  tameness  and  systematic 
abandonment  of  our  commercial  rights  have  had  the 
effect  to  bring  upon  us  so  many  miseries,  a  contrary 
course  of  conduct,  having  for  its  basis  a  wise  spirit  and 
systematic  naval  support,  it  may  well  be  hoped,  will 
have  the  opposite  effect,  —  of  renewing  our  prosperity. 
But  if  it  be  true,  as  is  so  frequently  and  so  confidently 
asserted,  that  Great  Britain  is  jealous  of  our  commercial 
greatness ;  if  it  be  true  that  she  would  depress  us  as 
rivals  ;  if  she  begins  to  regard  us  as  a  power  which  may 
soon  curb,  if  not  in  aftertirnes  spurn,  her  proud  control 
on  her  favorite  element,  —  then,  indeed,  she  may  be  dis- 
posed to  quench  the  ardor  of  our  naval  enterprise  ;  then, 
indeed,  it  may  be  her  care  so  to  shape  the  course  of  her 
policy  as  to  deprive  our  commerce  of  all  hope  of  its 
natural  protection,  and  to  co-operate  with  and  cherish 
such  an  administration  in  this  country  as  hates  a  naval 
force  and  loves  commercial  restriction.  In  this  view  of 
her  policy,  —  and  I  am  far  from  asserting  it  is  not  cor- 
rect, —  is  it  not  obvious  that  she  may  be  content  with 
the  present  condition  of  our  commerce  ?  Except  ac- 
knowledged colonial  vassalage,  what  state  of  things 
would  be  more  desirable  to  her  ?  The  whole  sea  is  her 
own.  Her  American  rival  tamely  makes  cession  of  it 
to  her  possession.  Our  commercial  capital  is  already 
seeking  employment  in  her  cities,  and  our  seamen  in 
her  ships.  What  then  results  ?  Is  it  not,  on  this  view 
of  her  policy,  undeniable  that  an  administration  in  this 
country,  for  the  purposes  of  Great  Britain,  is  such  as 
thinks  commerce  not  worth  having  or  not  worth  defend- 


326  SPEECH    ON    MARITIME    PROTECTION. 

ing ;  such  as,  in  every  scheme  of  nominal  protection, 
meditates  to  it  nothing  but  additional  embarrassment 
and  eventual  abandonment?  Must  not  such  an  admin- 
istration be  convenient  to  British  ministry  if  such  be  a 
British  policy  ?  And  if  British  ministers  should  ever 
find  such  an  administration  in  this  country  made  to 
their  hands,  may  we  not  anticipate  that  they  will  take 
care  to  manage  with  a  view  to  its  continuance  in  power? 
Of  all  policy  the  most  ominous  to  British  ascendency  is 
that  of  a  systematic  maritime  defence  of  our  maritime 
rights. 

The  general  effect  of  the  policy  I  advocate  is  to  pro- 
duce confidence  at  home  and  respect  abroad.  These 
are  twin  shoots  from  the  same  stock,  and  never  fail  to 
flourish  or  fade  together.  Confidence  is  a  plant  of  no 
mushroom  growth  and  of  no  artificial  texture.  It 
springs  only  from  sage  councils  and  generous  endeavors. 
The  protection  you  extend  must  be  efficient  and  suited 
to  the  nature  of  the  object  you  profess  to  maintain.  If 
it  be  neither  adequate  nor  appropriate,  your  wisdom 
may  be  doubted,  your  motives  may  be  distrusted,  but  in 
vain  you  expect  confidence.  The  inhabitants  of  the 
seaboard  will  inquire  of  their  own  senses  and  not  of 
your  logic  concerning  the  reality  of  their  protection. 

As  to  respect  abroad,  what  course  can  be  more  certain 
to  insure  it?  What  object  more  honorable,  what  more 
dignified,  than  to  behold  a  great  nation  pursuing  wise 
ends  by  appropriate  means ;  rising  to  adopt  a  series  of 
systematic  exertions  suited  to  her  power  and  adequate 
to  her  purposes  ?  What  object  more  consolatory  to  the 
friends,  what  more  paralyzing  to  the  enemies,  of  our 


SPEECH   ON   MARITIME   PROTECTION.  327 

Union,  than  to  behold  the  natural  jealousies  and  rivalries, 
which  are  the  acknowledged  dangers  of  our  political 
condition,  subsiding  or  sacrificing?  What  sight  more 
exhilarating  than  to  see  this  great  nation  once  more 
walking  forth  among  the  nations  of  the  earth  under 
the  protection  of  no  foreign  shield  ?  peaceful,  because 
powerful ;  powerful,  because  united  in  interests,  and 
amalgamated  by  concentration  of  those  interests  in  the 
national  affections. 

But  let  the  opposite  policy  prevail ;  let  the  essential 
interests  of  the  great  component  parts  of  this  Union  find 
no  protection  under  the  national  arm  ;  instead  of  safety 
let  them  realize  oppression,  and  the  seeds  of  discord 
and  dissolution  are  inevitably  sown  in  a  soil  the  best 
fitted  for  their  root,  and  affording  the  richest  nourish- 
ment for  their  expansion.  It  may  be  a  long  time  before 
they  ripen  ;  but  sooner  or  later  they  will  assuredly  burst 
forth  in  all  their  destructive  energies.  In  the  inter- 
mediate period,  what  aspect  does  an  union  thus  destitute 
of  cement  present  ?  Is  it  that  of  a  nation  keen  to  dis- 
cern and  strong  to  resist  violations  of  its  sovereignty  ? 
It  has  rather  the  appearance  of  a  casual  collection  of 
semibarbarous  clans,  with  the  forms  of  civilization,  and 
with  the  rude  and  rending  passions  of  the  savage  state : 
in  truth,  powerful ;  yet,  as  to  any  foreign  effect,  im- 
becile :  rich  in  the  goods  of  fortune,  yet  wanting  that 
inherent  spirit  without  which  a  nation  is  poor  indeed : 
their  strength  exhausted  by  struggles  for  local  power ; 
their  moral  sense  debased  by  low  intrigues  for  personal 
popularity  or  temporary  pre-eminence ;  all  their  thoughts 
turned,  not  to  the  safety  of  the  state,  but  to  the  eleva- 


328  SPEECH   ON  MARITIME   PROTECTION. 

tion  of  a  chieftain.  A  people  presenting  such  an  aspect, 
what  have  they  to  expect  abroad  ?  what  but  pillage, 
insult,  and  scorn  ? 

The  choice  is  before  us.  Persist  in  refusing  efficient 
maritime  protection  ;  persist  in  the  system  of  commercial 
restrictions :  what  now  is,  perhaps,  prophecy  will  here- 
after be  history. 


SPEECH 

ON  THE  RELIEF  OF  SUNDRY  MERCHANTS  FROM 
PENALTIES  INNOCENTLY  INCURRED. 

DEC.  14,  1812. 


SPEECH 

ON     THE     RELIEF     OF     SUNDRY    MERCHANTS     FROM 
PENALTIES    INNOCENTLY    INCURRED. 

DEC.  14,  1812. 


[!N  the  remarks  preliminary  to  the  speech  of  February  25, 
1811,  I  have  related  how  England  refused  to  comply  with  the 
conditions  of  the  act  repealing  non-intercourse  with  her  and 
France,  and  of  the  consequent  re-enactment  of  that  measure  as 
far  as  she  was  concerned.  After  somewhat  more  than  a  year, 
just  about  the  time  of  our  declaration  of  war,  June  18,  1812, 
she  had  thought  better  of  the  matter  and  revoked  her  Orders  in 
Council,  which,  if  done  eighteen  months  earlier,  would  have 
saved  the  two  countries  from  a  conflict  from  which  neither 
reaped  much  credit  or  any  advantage.  After  the  revocation,  and 
before  our  declaration  of  war  had  reached  England,  American 
merchants  residing  there,  taking  it  for  granted  that  the  non-inter- 
course would  be  repealed,  if  it  did  not  cease,  ipso  facto,  by  the 
action  of  the  British  ministry,  openly  and  in  entire  good  faith, 
loaded  their  ships  with  the  prohibited  articles  and  despatched 
them  to  the  United  States.  But  the  act  was  still  in  force ;  war 
had  been  declared  ;  the  goods  were  forfeited,  and,  by  the  letter  of 
the  law,  three  times  their  value  besides.  To  exact  these  penal- 
ties was  more  than  even  Mr.  Madison's  government  ventured  to 
propose.  But,  as  it  was  in  the  most  pressing  need  of  money, 
Mr.  Gallatin,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  devised  this  plan 
for  extracting  about  nine  millions  of  dollars  from  the  honest 


332  SPEECH   ON   THE 

error  of  the  importers.  The  invoice  value  of  the  merchandise 
was  about  eighteen  millions.  By  the  law,  the  entire  importation 
was  forfeited,  one  half  to  go  to  the  government  and  the  other  to 
the  informer.  Mr.  Gallatin  proposed  to  relinquish  the  informer's 
moiety  to  the  importers,  and  to  put  that  of  the  government  into 
the  Treasury.  How  he  justified  to  himself  this  cavalier  treat- 
ment of  the  informers  we  are  not  told ;  it  would  certainly  not 
have  been  submitted  to  without  an  outcry  by  that  valuable  class 
of  citizens  in  our  day  :  but  this  modified  proposition  was  regarded 
by  the  sufferers  and  the  impartial  part  of  the  public  as  only  a 
mitigated  form  of  spoliation  of  innocent  parties.  The  resistance 
to  its  infliction  upon  them  which  is  expressed  in  this  speech  had 
the  effect  of  causing  the  project  to  fail  and  the  entire  forfeitures 
to  be  remitted.  —  ED.] 

MR.  QUINCY  (of  Massachusetts)  said  that,  in  listening 
to  the  debate,  what  had  impressed  his  mind  the  most 
forcibly  was  the  simplicity  of  the  question.  He  was 
less  surprised  at  the  arguments  which  were  urged  than 
that  any  argument  was  necessary.  A  mere  statement 
of  the  case,  he  should  have  thought,  would  have  settled 
the  question.  Twenty  millions  of  dollars  were  said  to 
be  forfeited  to  the  United  States,  —  an  amount  equal 
to  one-third  of  the  whole  national  debt.  This  sum  was 
alleged  to  be  due  from  comparatively  a  small  class  of 
men,  in  particular  sections  of  the  country,  in  the  cities 
and  on  the  seaboard.  It  was  distributed  among  the 
individuals  of  that  class  in  various  proportions.  To 
every  one  of  them,  the  amount  demanded  is  material. 
The  greater  part  of  the  fortunes  of  some  is  at  stake. 
To  others  it  is  a  simple  question  of  prosperity  or  ruin. 
The  principles  arising  out  of  the  case  and  connected 
with  the  decision  are,  in  their  nature,  so  complicated 
and  delicate  that  scarcely  two  men  can  be  found  on  the 


KEMISSION   OF   PENALTIES.  333 

floor  of  Congress  who  can  agree  by  what  scale  remission 
shall  be  graduated,  if  remitted  at  all.  A  case  of  this 
magnitude,  —  so  important  to  the  public,  so  critical  to 
the  individuals,  so  dubious  in  point  of  principle,  and  so 
consequential  in  sectional  alarm  and  interest,  —  it  is 
seriously  contended,  should  be  referred  to  the  decision 
of  a  single  individual ;  that  one  man  should  be  invested 
with  the  power  to  decide  the  fates  of  multitudes  of  his 
fellow-citizens,  and  decree  riches  or  poverty,  not  by  any 
known  rule  or  standard,  but  according  to  his  absolute 
will  and  discretion  !  Such  is  the  power  seriously  con- 
tended for,  in  a  country  -calling  itself  free,  by  men  who 
pretend  to  understand  the  nature  of  civil  liberty  and 
to  venerate  its  principles  ! ! 

Mr.  Quincy  said  that  the  nature  of  the  proposition 
was  not  more  astonishing  than  the  main  reason  urged 
in  its  support.  And  this  was,  that  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  possessed  this  power  already  ;  that  the  law 
now  placed  it  in  its  hands.  As  if  the  greatness  of  a 
power,  and  its  exceeding  the  trust  which  any  man  ought 
to  possess,  and  its  irreconcilableness  with  the  settled 
principles  on  which  public  safety  in  a  free  country 
depends,  were  not  conclusive  either  that  no  such  power 
ever  was  invested,  or  that  the  possessor  ought  to  be 
deprived  of  it. 

Mr.  Quincy  then  proceeded  to  investigate  the  general 
powers  vested  in  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  the 
mitigation  or  remission  of  fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures. 
He  contended  that  no  such  power  was  invested  in  the 
head  of  that  department  as  the  Secretary  had  asserted 
in  his  letter  to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  In 
this  letter,  the  Secretary  asserts  that  "  the  power  to 


334  SPEECH    ON   THE 

remit  the  share  of  the  United  States,  and  of  all  other 
persons,  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  on  such  terms  and 
conditions  as  may  be  deemed  reasonable  and  just,  is  by 
law  vested  in  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury."  Mr. 
Quincy  said  that  this  was  nothing  less  than  the  asser- 
tion of  an  absolute  discretion  in  relation  to  the  subject- 
matter,  —  a  discretion  without  limit,  or  principle,  or 
measure  of  control,  or  rule  of  decision,  except  the  sov- 
ereign will  and  pleasure  of  the  individual  possessing  it. 
For  he  who  can  do  in  relation  to  any  matter  or  thing, 
in  the  Avhole  or  in  the  part,  and  fix  such  terms  and  con- 
ditions, as  he  may  deem  reasonable  and  just,  has  as 
absolute  an  authority  in  that  matter  or  thing  as  heart 
can  desire.  And  if,  by  any  general  law,  such  power  be 
invested  in  any  person  whatsoever,  we  have  not  much 
to  boast,  in  this  respect,  either  of  the  wisdom  or  of  the 
freedom  of  our  laws. 

The  question,  then,  is,  whether  this  power,  thus  as- 
serted to  exist  in  himself  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, be  vested  in  him  by  law.  Mr.  Quincy  said  that 
he  confessed  that,  on  the  first  reading  of  the  statute, 
being  under  the  influence  of  the  opinion  thus  unequiv- 
ocally expressed  by  the  Secretary,  and  not  at  once 
perceiving  how  the  terms  of  law  had  been  wrested  to 
the  purposes  of  official  construction,  he  yielded  a 
momentary,  and  reluctant  assent  to  the  claim  of  the 
Secretary.  Recollecting,  however,  what  a  fascinating 
thing  absolute  power  is,  and  how  little  implicit  faith 
any  man  has  a  right  to  claim  in  a  case  where  the  degree 
of  his  power  is  dependent  upon  his  own  construction  ; 
recollecting  also  the  character  of  the  men  who,  in  the 
year  1797,  when  the  law  in  question  was  passed,  had 


REMISSION   OF   PENALTIES.  335 

the  reins  of  power,  he  began  to  doubt  of  the  construc- 
tion, and  set  himself  carefully  to  investigate  on  what 
grounds  this  arbitrary  discretion,  thus  obtrusively  as- 
serted by  the  Secretary  as  existing  in  himself,  was 
founded.  He  said  that  the  men  who,  at  the  time  when 
the  law  in  question  was  passed,  presided  over  the  con- 
struction of  our  laws  were  not  only  learned  and  able 
men  and  true  lovers  of  their  country,  but  they  were 
men,  also,  deeply  versed  in  the  principles  of  civil  lib- 
erty ;  they  were  natives  of  the  soil,  and  had  not  been 
educated  in  the  arbitrary  doctrines  of  the  civil  law,  but 
had  drank  in  the  essential  principles  of  the  ancient 
Saxon  common  law,  as  it  were,  with  their  mother's 
milk.  Such  men  were  not  likely  to  grant  so  enormous 
a  power,  by  any  general  terms,  even  in  an  unguarded 
moment.  For,  had  reason  failed  them  in  a  case  of  this 
nature,  instinct  would  have  come  to  their  aid.  He 
determined,  therefore,  to  investigate  this  question,  aloof 
from  the  prejudices  which  the  assertion  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  and  the  corroborative  opinion  of  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  had  created,  and  set 
himself  to  examine  what  were  those  essential  principles 
of  civil  liberty  which  lay,  as  it  were,  at  the  base  of  all 
statutes  of  this  kind,  and  which  were,  in  their  nature, 
so  predominant  and  inherent  that  no  friend  of  freedom 
could  possibly  forget  them  when  framing  such  a  statute. 
Mr.  Quincy  said  that,  on  turning  this  subject  in  his 
mind,  he  had  found  two  principles  of  the  nature  which 
he  sought.  The  first  was,  that  the  innocent  should 
never  be  confounded  with  the  guilty :  of  consequence, 
that  the  law  must  have  been  intended  to  be  so  con- 
structed as  that,  as  far  as  possible,  the  former  should 


336  SPEECH   ON   THE 

always  escape,  and  the  latter  should  always  be  punished. 
The  second  was,  that  the  object  of  the  penalty  was 
only  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  the  law ;  of 
consequence,  that,  when  this  object  was  attained,  there 
ought  to  be  an  end  of  the  penalty,  which  was  ever  to 
be  considered  as  the  sanction  or  vindicatory  branch  of 
the  law,  and  never  be  perverted  to  the  purposes  of  the 
ways  and  means  of  the  Treasury.  When  the  terms  of 
the  statute  under  consideration  were  considered  in  ref- 
erence to  these  principles,  all  doubt  as  to  its  true  con- 
struction vanished.  The  character  of  the  framers  of 
the  law  was  vindicated.  No  such  power  as  that  asserted 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  relation  to  the  sub- 
ject of  the  penalties,  was  vested  in  him.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  real  grant  of  power  was  precise,  limited,  and 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  principles  of  civil  liberty. 

The  law  contained  two  clauses,  which  .comprehended 
all  the  powers  relative  to  this  subject  vested  in  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  The  words  are  these.  After 
prescribing  the  modes  by  which  testimony  concerning 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  shall  be  collected  and 
transmitted  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the  stat- 
ute proceeds :  "  Who  shall,  thereupon,  have  power  to 
mitigate  or  remit  such  fine,  forfeiture,  or  penalty,  or 
remove  such  disability,  or  any  part  thereof,  if,  in  his 
opinion,  the  same  shall  have  been  incurred  without  wil- 
ful negligence  or  any  intention  of  fraud  in  the  person  or 
persons  incurring  the  same ;  and  to  direct  the  prose- 
cution, if  any  shall  have  been  instituted  for  the  recovery 
thereof,  to  cease  and  be  discontinued,  upon  such  terms 
or  conditions  as  he  may  deem  reasonable  and  just." 

From  these  clauses  in  the  statute,  if  from  any,  the 


BEMISSION   OF  PENALTIES.  337 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  derives  that  unlimited  discre- 
tion, which  he  asserts  in  his  letter  to  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means  to  be  vested  in  his  department.  Now 
these  clauses  are  distinct  and  substantive,  having  rela- 
tion to  two  objects,  also  distinct  and  substantive.  The 
first  clause  relates  to  the  penalty  incurred ;  the  second, 
to  the  prosecution  commenced. 

As  to  the  first  clause  relative  to  the  penalty,  fine,  or 
forfeiture  incurred,  so  far  from  vesting  an  unlimited 
discretionary  power,  it  vests,  strictly  speaking,  no  dis- 
cretion whatever.  It  is  in  truth  a  power  to  mitigate, 
remit,  or  remove,  according  to  a  stated  and  specified 
statute  standard.  This  authority  is  to  exercise  his 
judgment,  upon  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  touching 
the  existence  or  non-existence  of  either  of  two  partic- 
ulars stated  in  the  statute,  wilful  negligence  or  fraud. 
If  neither  exist,  he  has  the  power  to  remit.  If  either 
exist  but  in  a  partial  degree,  he  has  the  power  to  grad- 
uate the  penalty,  fine,  or  forfeiture  to  the  degree  of 
guilt.  And  this  is  his  whole  power  resulting  from  this 
clause.  The  head  of  the  Treasury  is  a  mere  tribunal  to 
decide,  whether  the  statute  guilt  has  been  incurred,  or 
any  part  of  it,  and  according  to  that  judgment  to  grad- 
uate the  fine,  penalty,  or  forfeiture.  If  there  be  no 
guilt,  his  power  of  mitigation,  that  is  of  graduation,  is 
at  an  end.  In  such  case  it  cannot  be  exercised.  The 
single  authority  he  has  is  to  remit  altogether.  He  has 
no  more  right  to  talk  of  "  profits  "  or  "  extra  profits," 
or  "  equivalents,"  or  to  intimate  boons  or  "  loans,"  as 
the  grounds  of  remission,  than  he  has  to  decree  the 
whole  penalty  into  his  own  pocket  for  his  private  use. 
The  plain  purpose  of  the  law  is,  that  guilt  should  suffer 

22 


338  SPEECH   ON    THE 

and  that  innocence  should  escape.  And  by  guilt  and 
innocence  is  only  meant  statute  guilt  or  statute  inno- 
cence. Whatever  is  either  wilful  negligence  or  fraud  is 
statute  guilt.  Whatever  is  neither  one  nor  the  other  is 
innocence.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  perfectly  reconcilable 
this  is  to  the  established  principles  of  civil  liberty. 
Instead  of  a  sharp-scented  statesman,  invested  with 
powers  to  hunt  among  fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures, 
for  the  ways  and  means  of  the  Treasury,  we  find  only  a 
benignant  and  wisely  constituted  tribunal,  with  power 
to  judge,  upon  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  how  far 
any  statute  guilt  has  been  incurred,  and  to  graduate 
suffering  according  to  the  degree  which  shall  appear. 

As  to  the  second  clause,  relative  to  the  prosecution 
commenced,  there  is,  indeed  a  discretion  invested  in  the 
head  of  the  Treasury.  But  it  is  a  discretion  extremely 
limited  in  its  nature,  arising  out  of  the  necessity  of  the 
case,  extending  only  to  very  subordinate  considerations, 
and  in  the  exercise  of  which  there  is  little  or  no  tempta- 
tion to  abuse.  It  relates  only  to  the  terms  and  condi- 
tions on  which  he  may  direct  the  prosecution  to  cease. 
These  he  is  permitted  to  fix  "  as  he  may  deem  reason- 
able and  just."  That  such  a  power  is  necessaiy  is  obvi- 
ous, because,  although  the  innocent  has  a  right  to  be 
free  from  the  imputation  and  penalty  of  guilt,  yet  the 
costs  and  expenses  which  have  been  incurred  is  a  loss 
which  must  fall  somewhere.  The  nature  of  things  has 
thrown  it  upon  him,  and  no  principle  of  justice  can 
transfer  it  to  another.  But  the  discretionary  power  here 
given  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  extremely  limited,  and 
extends  only  to  those  particulars  which  are  incident  to 
the  prosecution,  to  costs,  expenses  and  sometimes  com- 


REMISSION   OF   PENALTIES. 

pensation  to  custom-house  officers  for  services  rendered, 
either  in  their  seizure  or  in  the  care  of  the  property.  It 
is  obvious,  also,  that  in  exercising  such  a  discretion  the 
danger  of  abuse  is  limited,  not  only  from  the  circum- 
scribed nature  of  the  sphere,  but  from  the  circumstances 
in  which  it  is  exercised.  He  has  no  official  inducement 
to  abuse  his  power.  The  particulars  which  are  incident 
to  a  prosecution  are  distinct,  notorious,  and  easily  to 
be  ascertained  ;  and,  as  to  compensation  due  to  the  cus- 
tom-house officer,  the  Secretary  having,  by  no  possibility, 
any  interest,  personal  or  official,  in  the  decision,  may 
safely  be  intrusted  with  it ;  and  ought  to  be,  out  of 
regard  to  the  indemnification  of  the  officer.  Here, 
again,  there  is  no  interference  with  the  established  prin- 
ciples of  civil  liberty.  The  question  relative  to  causing 
the  prosecution  to  cease  has  no  connection  with  guilt  or 
innocence.  It  is  merely  ascertaining  the  inevitable  loss 
which  he  must  bear  on  whom  the  bolt  of  heaven  has 
fallen.  If  a  compensation  is  decreed,  it  is  for  the  cus- 
tom-house officer  and  not  the  Treasury.  It  is  decreed 
not  as  a  part  of  the  penalty,  for  that  is  incurred  only  in 
consequence  of  guilt,  which  is  in  this  case  out  of  the 
question  ;  but  is  decreed  only  as  a  part  of  that  inevita- 
ble loss  which  some  one  must  bear,  and  of  course  he  on 
whom  the  lot  is  cast. 

When  the  statute  is  considered,  it  will  easily  be  seen 
what  are  the  means  by  which  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  grasps  at  this  unlimited  and  arbitrary  discre- 
tion which  he  asserts  in  his  letter  to  the  committee.  It 
is  by  confounding  what  is  distinct,  and  associating  what 
are  separate.  By  a  sort  of  Treasury  amalgam,  he  con- 
solidates both  clauses  of  the  statute  into  one,  and 


340  SPEECH   ON   THE 

attaches  the  power  of  annexing  "  terms  and  conditions 
which  he  shall  deem  reasonable  and  just "  to  the  clause 
which  has  relation  to  the  penalty,  instead  of  restricting 
it  to  the  clause  which  has  relation  to  the  prosecution. 
This  may  be  a  very  happy  construction  for  the  Treasury, 
but  it  is  a  very  ruinous  one  for  the  citizen :  at  least,  so 
it  is  likely  to  prove,  judging  by  the  proposition  now 
under  consideration. 

If  any  one  asks  why  these  powers  are  to  be  con- 
strued as  though  distinct  and  substantive,  instead  of 
amalgamated  and  consolidated,  I  answer  on  four  plain 
and  solid  grounds  :  the  terms  of  the  law  ;  the  policy  of 
the  law  ;  the  nature  of  the  thing  ;  and  the  established 
principles  of  civil  liberty. 

The  terms  of  the  law  are  select  and  appropriate. 
Those  connected  with  the  remission  or  mitigation,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  not  only  give  the  power,  but  limit  the 
exercise  of  it  by  an  express  statute  standard,  —  he  is  to 
do  the  one  or  the  other,  according  to  the  non-existence 
or  the  degree  of  existence  of  "  wilful  negligence  or  in- 
tention of  fraud."  Those  connected  with  the  causing 
the  prosecution  to  cease  are  equally  precise.  The  power 
of  annexing  terms  and  conditions,  such  as  he  may  deem 
reasonable  and  just,  relates  to  that  object,  —  the  causing 
of  the  prosecution  to  cease,  —  and  nothing  else. 

The  policy  of  the  law  is  not  less  corroborative  of  this 
construction.  It  is  a  remedial  statute  ;  as  such  it  must 
be  construed  liberally.  Its  policy  is  to  suffer  all  the 
innocent  and  none  of  the  guilty  to  escape.  For  this 
purpose  it  has  set  up  a  statute  standard  by  which  the 
Secretary  is  to  decide  who  is  innocent  and  the  degree 
of  innocence,  and  graduate  the  penalty  accordingly. 


REMISSION  OF  PENALTIES.  341 

Therefore  it  is  that  the  power  of  affixing  conditions  is 
not  annexed  by  the  terms  of  the  law  to  the  power  of 
mitigating  and  remitting.  To  the  degree  of  statute 
guilt  which  a  man  has  incurred,  the  Secretary  is  morally 
bound  to  punish.  But  when  of  this  degree  there  is 
none,  he  is  then  morally  bound  to  acquit.  Of  "  terms 
and  conditions  "  here  there  is  no  use  ;  for  guilt  must  be 
punished  according  to  its  degree,  and  innocence  must 
escape.  Now  the  law  permits  no  "  terms  or  conditions  " 
to  be  made  with  the  innocent ;  no  "  equivalent "  is  asked 
for  not  confounding  them  with  the  guilty.  It  is  the 
policy,  it  is  the  delight,  of  the  law  that  they  should  go 
free  and  unspotted,  according  to  their  innate  purity.  • 

The  nature  of  the  thing  shows  also  that  the  power  of 
annexing  such  "  terms  and  conditions  as  he  may  deem 
reasonable  and  just  "  exclusively  belongs  to  the  power 
of  causing  the  prosecution  to  cease.  For,  from  the  nat- 
ure of  the  thing,  the  question  concerning  causing  the 
prosecution  to  cease  is  subordinate  in  point  of  impor- 
tance and  secondary  in  point  of  time  to  the  question 
concerning  mitigating  or  remitting  the  penalty.  For 
whether  the  decision  of  the  Secretary  be  guilty  of  a  part 
or  not  guilty  at  all,  the  Secretary's  power  is  in  the  same 
state.  It  has  thus  far  done  its  work.  The  degree  of 
guilt  or  innocence  is  ascertained  ;  the  penalty  is  re- 
mitted or  graduated.  The  only  remaining  prerogative 
of  the  Secretary  relates  to  the  prosecution.  Here  he 
possesses  the  discretion  before  noticed.  But  it  is  a 
power  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  cannot  re- 
troact,  and  bring  again  innocence  or  guilt  into  view. 
That  is  already  settled,  at  least  in  principle,  and  -must 
be  before  the  question  concerning  the  prosecution  can 
be  agitated. 


342  SPEECH    ON    THE 

But  there  is  a  stronger  argument  than  all  these,  re- 
sulting from  the  established  principles  of  civil  liberty. 
What  is  the  nature  of  that  proud  consciousness  which 
freemen  feel  and  delight  to  acknowledge  ?  and  of  \vhat 
stuff  is  it  composed  ?  What  is  it  but  the  certainty  with 
which  each  individual  is  inspired  that  he  holds  life,  lib- 
erty, and  property,  subject  only  to  known  laws  and 
aloof  from  the  will  of  any  individual  ?  So  long  as  he  is 
innocent,  he  has  no  compromise  to  make,  no  equivalent 
to  offer,  no  truckling  to  assume.  He  on  whom  any  fine, 
penalty,  or  forfeiture  of  the  collection  law  has  fallen  by 
any  mischance  or  by  the  act  of  God,  has  as  much  right 
to  possess  this  consciousness  as  the  proudest  mortal  of 
us  all.  He  stands  before  the  tribunal  of  the  Secretary 
not  to  chaffer  for  a  pardon.  He  is  innocent.  If  there 
be  any  portion  of  the  statute  guilt,  graduate  the  punish- 
ment ;  but  if  there  be  none,  cruel,  wicked,  despotic  is 
that  construction  which  obliges  him  to  compound  for  his 
escape  from  a  statute  framed  only  to  punish  guilt ;  to 
pay  "  profits  ;  "  to  make  "  forced  loans  ;  "  to  promise 
"  equivalents."  For  what  ?  Why,  truly  that,  though 
innocent,  he  should  not  partake  the  fate  of  guilt. 

When  I  speak  of  innocence  and  guilt,  I  mean  always 
statute  innocence  or  statute  guilt.  I  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  money  dreams  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  nor  with  the  day  dreams  of  the  gentleman 
from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Grundy).  He  did  not  pretend, 
no  man  has  pretended,  no  man  can  pretend,  that  there 
was  any  intention  of  fraud  or  any  wilful  negligence  in 
the  merchants  whose  case  is  now  before  the  House. 
But  he  told  us  at  one  time  that  their  crime  consisted 
"  in  purchasing  in  Great  Britain  ; "  at  another,  that  it 


REMISSION   OF   PENALTIES.  343 

consisted  "  in  not  co-operating  with  the  policy  of  the 
American  government."  Grant,  for  argument's  sake,  all 
the  guilt  these  charges  include.  Is  that  wilful  negli- 
gence or  intention  of  fraud  ?  Free  of  this,  are  they  not 
innocent  ?  Innocent,  are  they  not  entitled  to  entire 
remission  ? 

This  construction  for  which  I  contend,  I  think  I 
can  safely  state,  is  conformable  to  the  practice  of  the 
Treasury,  antecedent  to  the  accession  of  the  present 
Secretary.  At  least  so  it  appears,  from  the  book  of 
abstracts  of  the  Treasury,  entirely  to  my  satisfaction. 
Yet,  upon  this  point,  I  would  not  be  considered  as 
expressing  myself  with  absolute  certainty,  as  I  have  not 
had  an  opportunity  to  examine  the  original  records  of 
the  cases,  nor  yet  to  converse  with  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  although  I  have  been  twice  at  his  office  for 
that  purpose.  The  abstracts  of  the  Treasury,  ante- 
cedent to  that  period,  do  not  indicate  any  thing  like  a 
compromise  with  innocence  for  the  sake  of  profit  to  the 
Treasury.  The  judgments  stated  are  "  remission  "  or 
"  mitigation  "  on  payment  of  fees  or  duties  or  costs,  and 
sometimes  of  a  sum  certain ;  fifty  or  a  hundred  dollars 
to  the  revenue  officers,  or  to  parties  other  than  the 
United  States.  Although  I  do  not  conceive  the  former 
practice  of  the  Treasury  very  material  on  the  point,  yet 
it  is  some  satisfaction  to  state  that  the  early  decisions 
to  which  I  allude  seem  to  be  guided  by  this  principle, 
that  the  Treasury  should  never  gain  any  thing  from  fine, 
penalty,  or  forfeiture,  except  in  case  of  guilt.  The  first 
case  I  could  find,  although  there  may  have  been  others 
antecedent,  was  that  of  Robert  Gillespie  in  June,  1802. 
It  was  the  case  of  an  importation  of  porter  in  casks,  of 


344       ,  SPEECH   ON    THE 

less  capacity  than  those  required  by  law.  The  judg- 
ment of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was :  No  wilful 
negligence  or  fraud ;  claim  of  the  United  States  released 
on  payment  of  costs  and  one-fourth  net  proceeds. 

Another  case  was  that  of  Theodoric  Armistead, 
decided  in  February,  1812.  Brandy  had  been  imported 
in  casks  of  less  capacity  than  required  by  law.  The 
judgment  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was :  No 
wilful  negligence  or  fraud ;  claim  of  the  United  States 
released  on  payment  of  costs  and  charges,  and  two  cents 
per  gallon  for  the  use  of  the  United  States.  And  this 
levy  is  expressly  stated  to  be  in  addition  to  the  duty 
established  by  law.  Why,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  a  prin- 
ciple is  this?  A  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  declares, 
in  so  many  words,  that  the  guilt  specified  in  the  statute 
to  which  the  penalty  is  annexed  does  not  exist,  yet 
mulcts  the  individual  at  his  discretion  as  the  condition 
on  which  innocence  is  not  made  subject  to  the  penalty ! 
If  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  can  lay  a  tax  of  u  two 
cents  per  gallon,"  why  not  of  twenty ;  if  he  can  take 
"  one-fourth  of  the  proceeds,"  according  to  his  arbitrary 
will,  why  not  the  half  or  the  whole  ?  In  these  cases 
what  has  become  of  that  essential  principle  of  civil 
liberty,  that  innocence  and  guilt  shall  never  be  con- 
founded ?  Both  Gillespie  and  Armistead,  though  clear 
by  the  statute,  have  gone  away  from  the  legal  tribunal 
taxed  by  the  Secretary.  I  dare  say  it  will  be  said,  they 
were  both  satisfied.  Doubtless,  sir.  The  Secretary 
had  resolved  himself  into  an  arbitrary  tribunal,  and 
what  private  individual  dare  question  the  opinion  of  the 
Secretary?  But  it  is  the  business  of  the  legislature  to 
consider  subjects  in  their  principles  and  consequences, 


REMISSION   OF  PENALTIES.  345 

and  not  by  the  convenience  of  this  or  that  individual. 
The  importance  of  withstanding  the  beginnings  of 
oppressive  encroachments  could  never  be  better  illus- 
trated than  by  the  instances  before  us.  These,  and 
cases  like  these,  were  the  nest-eggs  of  the  Treasury ;  and 
now  we  see  what  a  monstrous  brood  is  likely  to  be  pro- 
duced. The  Secretary  has  gone  on,  year  after  year,  exer- 
cising an  arbitrary  discretion  in  cases  of  small  amount 
and  affecting  individuals  only,  till  at  last  he  starts  up  a 
gigantic  power,  authorized  to  carve  what  he' pleases  out 
of  twenty  millions  of  dollars,  and  to  settle  the  destinies 
of  a  whole  class  of  citizens  !  If  doctrines  and  construc- 
tions like  these  are  to  receive  the  sanction  of  this  legis- 
lature, come,  Bonaparte,  as  soon  as  thou  wilt,  and  thou 
shalt  find  cabinet  principles  suited  to  all  thy  purposes  ! 

I  have  hitherto  considered  the  case  of  the  merchants' 
bonds  as  though  it  were  strictly  within  the  principle  of 
the  collection  laws.  And  the  bearing  of  my  argument 
has  been  this,  —  that  if  no  such  power  as  is  asserted  by 
the  Secretary  is  truly  vested  in  him,  in  the  cases  of  the 
ordinary  revenue,  that  much  less  ought  he  to  be  permitted 
to  exercise  this  most  dangerous  power  in  cases  of  so 
much  magnitude,  and  in  all  aspects  so  critical,  as  are 
those  under  consideration.  But  is  it  true  that  the  fines, 
penalties,  and  forfeitures,  accruing  under  the  restrictive 
system,  have  no  other  claims  for  relief  than  those  gen- 
eral ones  which  arise  under  the  collection  laws  ?  Alas, 
sir !  the  nature  of  these  laws  are  such  as  to  make  those 
claims  far  higher  and  more  impressive. 

I  shall  touch  this  subject  of  the  restrictive  system 
with  as  much  delicacy  as  possible.  I  wish  not  to  offend 
any  prejudices.  I  know  that  the  zeal  and  ardent  affec- 


346  SPEECH   ON   THE 

tion  which  some  gentlemen  show  for  this  restrictive 
system  very  much  resemble  the  loves  of  those  who, 
according  to  ancient  legends,  had  taken  philtres  and 
love-powders.  The  ecstasy  of  desire  is  just  in  propor- 
tion to  the  deformity  of  the  object.  I  shall  not,  how- 
ever, meddle  with  that  topic  any  further  than  it  is 
connected  with  the  subject  before  the  House. 

A  great  deal  is  said  about  the  policy  of  the  restrictive 
system,  and  the  necessity  of  a  rigorous  enforcement  of 
it.  Now  it  appears  to  me  that  the  desire  to  make  this 
system  effectual  ought  to  induce  the  release  of  these 
bonds,  and  not  their  enforcement.  The  object  of  the 
restrictive  system  is  averred  to  be  to  produce  a  change 
in  the  measures  of  the  British  cabinet  by  the  suffering 
which  the  loss  of  our  commerce  occasions  to  her  citizens. 
If  this  be  the  policy,  then  those  measures  are  beyond  all 
question  the  best  calculated  to  insure  its  success  whose 
tendency  is  to  diminish  the  suffering  as  far  as  possible 
of  the  citizens  of  your  own  country.  The  best  chance 
for  success  must  necessarily  be  by  convincing  the  think- 
ing part  of  the  community  in  Great  Britain  that,  while 
they  suffer  much,  we  suffer  little  or  nothing.  Were 
such  the  case,  then  indeed  the  system  might  have  some 
hope  of  a  prosperous  result.  But,  when  suffering  there 
is  found  to  be  attended  with  suffering  here,  then  the 
whole  potency  of  the  restrictive  system  results  in  this 
question,  —  which  can  suffer  the  most,  or  which  can  bear 
suffering  the  best.  And  what  judgment  will  the  peo- 
ple of  that  country  be  likely  to  form,  in  relation  to  the 
degree  this  people  suffer  or  their  capacity  to  endure? 
when  a  sweep  of  twenty  millions  of  dollars  is  seriously 
advocated  by  some  ;  and  when  a  majority  seem  inclined 


REMISSION  OP  PENALTIES.  347 

to  turn  the  penalties  of  the  restrictive  system,  not  into 
a  mean  of  punishment  of  fraudulent  or  wilful  violations, 
but  into  an  instrument  of  ways  and  means  of  the  Treas- 
ury ?  Does  it  need  any  ghost  from  the  dead,  or  seer 
from  the  skies,  to  tell  the  people  of  Great  Britain  that, 
in  a  free  country,  such  a  system  of  oppression  must  be 
short-lived,  and  that  its  supporters  must  soon  become 
detested  ?  So  that,  if  the  policy  of  the  system  be  con- 
sulted, it  requires  that  its  rigor  should  be  softened  as  it 
respects  your  own  citizens. 

But  are  there  not  other  considerations  materially  dis- 
tinguishing the  character  of  the  restrictive  system  from 
that  of  your  collection  laws,  and  requiring  a  correspond- 
ent mildness  in  the  construction  of  the  laAvs  relative  to 
the  former  which  the  latter  cannot  claim  ?  Concerning 
the  constitutional  power  of  the  national  legislature  to 
pass  the  laws  of  collection,  there  never  was  any  question. 
But  concerning  its  power,  under  the  Constitution,  to 
pass  such  a  body  of  laws  as  those  which  compose  the 
restrictive  system,  there  always  has  been,  there  is,  and 
ever  will  be,  a  question.  A  very  great  majority  in  all 
the  commercial  States  always  have  denied  that  the 
power  of  regulating  commerce  included  the  power  of 
annihilating  it  altogether.  They  believe  nothing  in  the 
project ;  and  they  believe  as  little  in  your  right  to  con- 
vert their  only  means  of  prosperity  to  the  purposes  of 
hostility.  They  ever  will  deny  that  any  power  is  vested 
in  this  or  any  other  body  of  men  to  bring  down  direct 
and  certain  ruin  on  the  whole  commercial  section  of  the 
country  under  pretence  of  producing  an  indirect  and 
uncertain  pressure  upon  a  foreign  nation.  Surely  this 
is  a  reason  for  a  mild  exercise  of  the  power  arising  under 


348  SPEECH   ON   THE 

these  restrictive  laws.  If  a  right  be  dubious,  the 
exercise  of  it  ought  not  to  be  made  more  obnoxious 
by  oppression. 

Not  only  the  authority  is  dubious,  but  the  provisions 
of  the  law  outrage  every  received  notion  of  legislative 
prudence  and  foresight.  They  "  outherod  Herod."  In 
six  years  Congress  have  passed  twenty  laws  creating  at 
least  one  hundred  new  offences.  These  offences  are 
constituted  of  acts,  previously  not  only  innocent,  but 
laudable  ;  not  only  laudable,  but  they  were  the  most 
common  and  necessary  acts  of  whole  sections  of  country 
and  whole  classes  of  men.  These  new  offences  subject 
the  offenders  to  the  most  grievous  penalties,  fines,  and 
forfeitures,  known  to  the  revenue  laws  ;  and  are  involved 
in  such  a  complexity  of  enactments,  re-enactments,  pro- 
visions, proclamations,  whole  revocations  and  half  revo- 
cations, that  no  man  under  heaven  can  tell  when  he  is 
safe,  or  how  or  where  to  steer  his  course,  without  being 
meshed  in  the  web  spread  for  him  by  your  statutes. 
Some  idea  maybe  had  of  the  degree  of  oppression  added 
to  these  penal  laws,  by  the  restrictive  system,  from 
comparing  the  applications  for  remission  antecedent  to 
the  commencement  of  that  system  with  those  subse- 
quent to  it.  Antecedent  to  the  19th  of  April,  1806, 
when  your  restrictive  system  commenced,  all  the  appli- 
cations for  remission  in  the  fifteen  previous  years 
amounted  to  somewhat  short  of  thirteen  hundred.  In 
the  six  years  'the  restrictive  system  has  been  in  opera- 
tion, there  have  been  nine  hundred  and  fifty -four,  and, 
if  to  these  be  added  those  known  at  the  department 
and  not  yet  acted  upon,  the  whole  number  exceeds  one 
thousand.  So  that  the  annual  average  of  applications 


REMISSION   OF  PENALTIES.  349 

for  remission,  since  the  restrictive  system,  is  double  the 
annual  average  of  applications  antecedent  to  that  period. 
In  other  words,  you  have  doubled  the  number  of  the 
snares  of  the  law,  and  the  cries  of  its  victims  are  heard 
in  a  double  proportion.  Do  you  think  that,  when  the 
web  of  the  law  is  thus  extended  beyond  all  reason 
and  precedent,  you  can  strain  its  penalties  to  the  ex- 
tremest  rigor  of  the  statute  without  public  sentiment 
revolting  against  you  ?  Is  it  in  human  nature  to  see  its 
fellow  struggling  innocently  in  the  toils  of  unnatural 
laws,  without  coming  to  its  aid  and  taking  vengeance 
on  its  persecutors  ? 

I  know  it  will  be  said  that  it  is  not  proposed  to  con- 
fiscate the  whole,  but  only  a  part.  In  other  words,  you 
will  take  not  all  that  you  want,  but  all  that  you  dare. 
To  this  I  reply,  You  have  no  right  to  a  single  dollar,  not 
to  a  cent.  The  merchants  are  free  of  all  legal  taint. 
They  are  free  from  all  statute  guilt.  There  is  in  the 
case  neither  "  wilful  negligence  nor  fraud."  The  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  does  not  pretend  either.  But 
this  is  his  situation,  and  this  is  the  secret  of  his  applica- 
tion to  Congress  for  their  sanction  to  his  exercise  of  this 
great  discretionary  power.  Confiscate  the  whole  of  this 
immense  amount,  ruin  hundreds  and  thousands  on  ac- 
count of  the  breach  of  the  letter  of  a  penal  statute, 
he  dare  not.  Mitigate,  upon  any  principle  which  would 
aid  the  Treasury  in  its  necessities,  he  could  not.  He 
therefore  transfers  the  whole  matter  to  the  broad  shoul- 
ders of  the  legislature  ;  talks  about  "  the  magnitude  and 
unforeseen  nature  of  the  case  ;  "  asserts  roundly  an  un- 
limited discretion  existing  in  his  department;  tells  of 
"  profits  and  extra  profits  "  made  by  the  merchants  ;  of 


350  SPEECH    ON    THE 

the  "  tax  levied  "  by  them  on  the  community  ;  and  sums 
up  the  whole  matter  with  a  hint  that  "  it  was  thought 
proper  not  to  exercise  his  authority  until  Congress  had 
taken  the  subject  into  consideration,  and  prescribed,  if 
they  thought  proper,  the  course  to  be  pursued."  Well, 
sir,  and  what  do  we  witness  now  that  the  subject  is 
before  Congress  ?  Why,  we  see  every  friend  of  the 
Secretary,  every  man  who  is  supposed  to  be  in  his  par- 
ticular confidence,  advocating  that  Congress  "  should 
think  proper  to  prescribe  no  course  whatever  to  be  pur- 
sued," but  refer  the  whole  to  the  absolute  discretion  of 
the  Secretary.  Can  any  man  witness  all  this  and  not 
understand  the  meaning  ?  To  my  ear  it  is  as  plain  as 
though  he  uttered  it  in  so  many  words  on  this  floor  : 
"  The  poverty  of  the  Treasury  and  not  my  will  consents. 
If  Congress  will  take  the  odium  and  the  risk,  I  will  take 
the  knife  and  the  flesh,  and  I  will  cut  where  and  just  as 
much  as  you  shall  authorize." 

I  shall  not  be  able  to  speak  upon  this  subject,  I  fear, 
without  offending  the  nice  sensibilities  of  some  gentle- 
men in  the  House.  Of  late  an  opinion  seems  to  be 
gaining  ground  upon  this  floor  that  a  member  cannot 
denominate  a  doctrine  or  principle  to  be  base  or  wicked 
without  attributing  those  qualities  to  those  who  may 
have  happened  to  advocate  such  doctrine  or  principle ; 
and  this,  too,  notwithstanding  he  expressly  declares  that 
he  has  no  intention  of  applying  attributes  to  such  per- 
sons, nor  even  intimating  that  their  view  is  the  same 
with  his  own  upon  the  subject.  I  protest,  sir,  against 
such  a  restriction  of  the  rights  of  debate  as  totally  in- 
consistent with  the  necessary  freedom  of  public  investi- 
gation. It  is  not  only  the  right  but  it  is  the  duty  of 


BEMISSION   OF  PENALTIES.  351 

every  man  to  whose  moral  perception  any  thing  pro- 
posed or  asserted  seems  base  or  wicked  to  brand  such 
proposition  or  assertion  with  its   appropriate   epithet. 
He  owes  this  duty  not  only  to  the  public,  but  to  the 
individual    who    has    been    unfortunate    or   mistaken 
enough  to  advocate  such  an  opinion  or  make  such  as- 
sertion.    And  provided  he  does  this  as  the  state  of  his 
own  perception  on  the  subject,  and  without  attributing 
motives  or  similar  perceptions  of  the  thing  to  others, 
not  only  there  is  no  reasonable  ground  of  offence,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  such  a  course  is  the  only  one  reconcila- 
ble with  duty.     How  else  shall  the  misgoided  or  mis- 
taken be  roused  from  their  moral  lethargy  or  blindness 
to  a  sense  of  the  real  condition  or  nature  of  things  ? 
What  mortal  has  an  intellect  so  clear  as  not  sometimes 
to  have  his  view  of  things  doubtful  or  obscure  ?    Whose 
moral  standard  is  so  fixed  and  perfect  as  that  it  never 
fails  him  at  the  moment  of  need  ?   If,  after  these  explana- 
tions, any  person  takes  an  exception  at  the  statement  of 
iny  perceptions  on  this  subject,  and  any  hot  humor  should 
fly  out  into  vapor  upon  the  occasion,  —  it  has  its  liberty, 
—  I  shall  regard  it  no  more  than  "  the  snapping  of  a 
chestnut  in  a  farmer's  fire." 

I  say,  then,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  to  my  view, — let  it  be 
understood,  sir,  I  do  not  assert  that  it  is  even  the  true 
view,  much  less  that  it  is  the  view  of  any  gentleman 
who  advocates  an  opposite  doctrine,  —  I  say  that  to  my 
view,  and  for  my  single  self,  I  would  as  soon  be  con- 
cerned in  a  highway  robbery  as  in  this  Treasury  attempt. 
Sir,  I  think  a  highway  robbery  a  little  higher  in  point 
of  courage,  and  a  little  less  in  point  of  iniquity.  In 
point  of  courage  there  is  obviously  no  comparison.  In 


352  SPEECH   ON   THE 

point  of  the  quality  of  the  moral  purpose,  the  robber 
who  puts  his  pistol  to  your  breast  only  uses  his  power 
to  get  your  property.  He  attacks  nothing  but  your 
person.  But  in  this  Treasury  attempt  the  reputation  of 
the  victim  is  to  be  attacked  to  make  an  apology  for  con- 
fiscating his  property.  Guilt  is  alleged,  —  guilt,  of  which 
he  is  clear  by  the  terms  of  the  law,  —  for  the  purpose  of 
making  him,  though  innocent,  compound  for  escaping 
the  penalty.  What  is  this  but  making  calumny  the 
basis  of  plunder  ? 

This  is  not  the  view  of  a  solitary  individual.  I  have 
letters  on  this  subject  from  men  not  merchants,  nor,  as  I 
am  apprised,  particularly  connected  with  the  mercantile 
class,  whose  language  is  perfectly  similar  to  that  I  have 
expressed.  Indeed,  sir,  some  exceed  even  these  ex- 
pressions in  bitterness  and  indignation.  Men  look  very 
differently  at  a  question  of  this  kind  when  they  are 
removed  a  thousand  miles  from  the  sufferers,  and  see 
the  principle  through  the  fascinating  medium  of  Treas- 
ury relief,  than  when  they  stand  by  the  side  of  the  vic- 
tims, and  see  distress  and  ruin  entailed  upon  innocence, 
or,  what  in  a  moral  view  is  worse,  witness  innocence 
compelled  to  compound  for  mercy  as  though  it  were 
guilt ! 

I  have  been  told,  sir,  that  this  state  of  opinion  ought 
to  be  concealed  ;  that  it  was  calculated  to  offend.  I 
have  been  also  told  that  we  on  this  side  of  the  House 
ought  not  to  take  any  part  in  this  debate  ;  that  a  party 
current  would  be  made  to  set  upon  the  question,  and 
this  to  the  merchants  was  inevitable  ruin.  To  all  this  I 
have  but  one  answer.  My  sense  of  duty  allows  no  com- 
promise on  this  occasion  nor  any  concealment.  I  stand 


REMISSION  OP  PENALTIES.  353 

not  on  this  floor  as  a  commercial  agent,  huckstering  for 
a  bargain.  As  one  of  the  representatives  of  the  people 
of  Massachusetts,  I  maintain  the  rights  of  these  men, 
not  because  they  are  merchants,  but  because  they  are 
citizens.  The  standard  by  which  their  rights  are  pro- 
posed to  be  measured  may  be  made  the  common  stand- 
ard for  us  all.  There  will  soon  be  no  safety  for  any 
man,  if  fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  be  once  estab- 
lished as  the  ways  and  means  of  the  Treasury. 

If  I  could  wish  that  evil  might  be  done  that  good 
might  result,  I  should  hope  that  you  would  confiscate 
the  property  of  these  merchants.  If  such  a  disposition 
really  prevails  in  the  national  legislature  towards  this 
class  of  men,  it  is  desirable  that  it  should  be  known. 
Act  out  your  whole  character.  Show  the  temper  which 
is  in  you.  The  sooner  will  the  people  of  the  commercial 
States  understand  what  they  owe  to  themselves  and  to 
their  section  of  country  when  there  is  no  longer  any 
veil  over  the  purposes  of  the  cabinet  and  its  sup- 
porters. 

But,  it  will  be  asked,  what  will  become  in  the  mean 
time  of  the  individuals  whose  whole  fortunes  are  at 
stake  ?  Trembling  for  the  prospects  of  themselves  and 
their  families,  they  stand,  like  thrice-knouted  Russians, 
before  the  Treasury  czar  and  autocrat.  I  say,  sir,  let 
them  be  true  to  themselves  and  true  to  their  class  and 
true  to  their  country,  and  they  have  nothing  to  fear. 
Let  them  remember  that  it  is  under  the  pretexts  of  law 
that  all  tyranny  makes  its  advances.  It  bribes  the 
avarice  of  the  many  to  permit  it  to  oppress  the  few. 
It  talks  of  necessity,  —  necessity,  the  beggar's  cloak,  the 
tyrant's  plea.  Let  the  merchants  refuse  all  compromise, 

23 


354       SPEECH   OX   THE   REMISSION   OF   PENALTIES. 

whether  in  the  shape  of  loans  or  of  equivalents  or  of  com- 
mutation for  extra  profits.  Let  them  scorn,  while  inno- 
cent, to  pay  any  part  of  a  penalty  which  is  due  only  in 
case  of  guilt ;  fly  to  the  States,  and  claim  their  con- 
stitutional interposition  ;  interest  their  humanity  to 
afford  a  shield  against  so  grievous  a  tyranny ;  above 
all,  let  them  throw  themselves  upon  the  moral  senti- 
ment of  the  community,  which  will  never  countenance, 
when  once  made  to  realize  the  nature  of,  the  oppression. 
And  let  this  be  their  consolation  that,  as  in  the  natural 
so  it  is  often  in  the  moral  and  political  world,  the  dark- 
est hour  of  the  night  is  that  which  precedes  the  first 
dawning  of  the  day. 


SPEECH 

ON    THE    INVASION    OF    CANADA. 
JAN.   5,  1813. 


SPEECH 

ON    THE    INVASION    OF    CANADA. 
JAN.  5,   1813. 


[THIS  speech,  with  which  I  shall  conclude  this  collection,  was 
one  of  the  most  effective  —  the  most  so,  probably,  unless  with  the 
exception  of  the  one  on  the  Admission  of  Louisiana  —  that  Mr. 
Quincy  ever  delivered.  It  came  at  the  moment  when  party 
spirit  raged  the  most  furiously ;  and  it  certainly  did  not  have,  nor 
did  it  propose  to  have,  any  tendency  to  calm  its  violence.  In  his 
old  age  he  declared  that  he  stood  by  it  in  its  substance  and  in  its 
form,  and  that  "  he  shrunk  not  from  the  judgment  of  after-times." 
And  he  had  no  reason  to  do  so.  Keen  as  is  its  invective,  bitter 
as  is  its  sarcasm,  and  severe  and  heavy  as  are  its  denunciations, 
the  facts  on  which  all  these  rest  are  clearly  stated  and  fully  sus- 
tained. It  was  this,  indeed,  which  gave  them  their  force  and  their 
sting  and  aroused  the  rage  of  the  friends  of  the  administration  to 
the  height  of  fury.  For  three  or  four  days  Mr.  Quincy  and  his 
speech  formed  the  object  of  the  attack  and  denunciation  of  the 
democratic  speakers,  with  Mr.  Clay,  who  left  the  Speaker's  chair 
for  the  purpose,  at  their  head.  But  these  things  moved  him  not, 
or  were  accepted  as  unwilling  testimonies  to  the  strength  of  the 
position  he  had  taken  up.  Though  most  sensitive  to  any  thing 
that  could  affect  his  true  honor  and  real  reputation,  Mr.  Quincy 
was  singularly  indifferent  to  all  attacks  made  upon  him  in 
Congress  or  by  the  press,  which  he  knew  were  not  deserved.  No 
one  was  ever  more  scrupulously  careful  to  make  sure  that  his 


358          SPEECH   ON  THE  INVASION   OF   CANADA. 

words  and  actions,  as  a  public  man,  were  exactly  true  and  just, 
and  none  more  unaffectedly  indifferent  as  to  what  was  thought  or 
said  of  the  one  or  the  other  by  friend  or  foe.  —  ED.] 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  fear  that  the  state  of  my  health  may 
prevent  my  doing  justice  to  my  sentiments  concerning 
this  bill.  I  will,  however,  make  the  attempt,  though  I 
should  fail  in  it. 

The  bill  proposes  that  twenty  thousand  men  should 
be  added  to  the  existing  military  establishment.  This, 
at  present,  consists  of  thirty-five  thousand  men.  So 
that  the  effect  of  this  bill  is  to  place  at  the  disposal  of 
the  executive  an  army  of  fifty-five  thousand.  It  is  not 
pretended  that  this  addition  is  wanted  either  for  defence 
or  for  the  relief  of  the  Indian  frontier.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  expressly  acknowledged  that  the  present 
establishment  is  sufficient  for  both  of  those  objects. 
But  the  purpose  for  which  these  twenty  thousand  men 
are  demanded  is  the  invasion  of  Canada.  This  is  un- 
equivocally avowed  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
of  Foreign  Relations  (Mr.  D.  R.  Williams),  the  organ, 
as  is  admitted,  of  the  will  and  the  wishes  of  the  Ameri- 
can cabinet. 

The  bill  brings  necessarily  into  deliberation  the  con- 
quest of  Canada,  either  as  an  object  in  itself  desirable, 
or  inferentially  advantageous  by  its  effect  in  producing 
an  early  and  honorable  peace. 

Before  I  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  those  topics 
which  naturally  arise  from  this  state  of  the  subject,  I 
will  ask  your  indulgence  for  one  moment,  while  I  make 
a  few  remarks  upon  this  intention  of  the  American  cab- 
inet, thus  unequivocally  avowed.  I  am  induced  to  this 


SPEECH   OK  THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA.         359 

from  the  knowledge  which  I  have  that  this  design  is 
not  deemed  to  be  serious  by  some  men  of  both  political 
parties,  as  well  within  this  House  as  out  of  it.  I  know 
that  some  of  the  friends  of  the  present  administration  do 
consider  the  proposition  as  a  mere  feint,  made  for  the 
purpose  of  putting  a  good  face  upon  things,  and  of 
strengthening  the  hope  of  a  successful  negotiation  by 
exciting  the  apprehensions  of  the  British  cabinet  for  the 
fate  of  their  colonies.  I  know,  also,  that  some  of  those 
who  are  opposed  in  political  sentiment  to  the  men  who 
are  now  at  the  head  of  affairs  laugh  at  these  schemes  of 
invasion,  and  deem  them  hardly  worth  controversy,  on 
account  of  their  opinion  of  the  imbecility  of  the  Ameri- 
can cabinet  and  the  embarrassment  of  its  resources. 

I  am  anxious  that  no  doubt  should  exist  upon  this 
subject,  either  in  the  House  or  in  the  nation.  Whoever 
considers  the  object  of  this  bill  to  be  any  other  than  that 
which  has  been  avowed  is  mistaken.  Whoever  believes 
this  bill  to  be  a  means  of  peace,  or  any  thing  else  than 
an  instrument  of  vigorous  and  long-protracted  war,  is 
grievousty  deceived.  And  whoever  acts  under  such 
mistake  or  such  deception  will  have  to  lament  one  of 
the  grossest,  and  perhaps  one  of  the  most  critical,  errors 
of  his  political  life.  I  warn,  therefore,  my  political 
opponents  —  those  honest  men,  of  which  I  know  there 
are  some  who,  paying  only  a  general  attention  to  the 
course  of  public  affairs,  submit  the  guidance  of  their 
opinions  to  the  men  who  stand  at  the  helm  —  not  to 
vote  for  this  bill  under  any  belief  that  its  object  is  to  aid 
negotiation  for  peace.  Let'  such  gentlemen  recur  to 
their  past  experience  on  similar  occasions.  They  will 
find  that  it  has  been  always  the  case,  whenever  any 


360         SPEECH    ON   THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA. 

obnoxious  measure  is  about  to  be  passed,  that  its  passage 
is  assisted  by  the  aid  of  some  such  collateral  sugges- 
tions. No  sooner  do  the  cabinet  perceive  that  any 
potion  which  they  intend  to  administer  is  loathed  by  a 
considerable  part  of  the  majority,  and  that  their  appre- 
hensions are  alive  lest  it  should  have  a  scouring  effect 
upon  their  popularity,  than  certain  under-operators  are 
set  to  work,  whose  business  it  is  to  amuse  the  minds  and 
beguile  the  attention  of  the  patients  while  the  dose  is 
swallowing.  The  language  always  is,  "  Trust  the  cabi- 
net doctors.  The  medicine  will  not  operate  as  you 
imagine,  but  quite  another  way."  After  this  manner 
the  fears  of  men  are  allayed,  arid  the  purposes  of  the 
administration  are  attained  under  suggestions  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  true  motives.  Thus  the  embargo, 
which  has  since  been  unequivocally  acknowledged  to 
have  been  intended  to  coerce  Great  Britain,  was  adopted, 
as  the  executive  asserted,  "  to  save  our  essential  re- 
sources." So  also,  when  the  present  war  was  declared 
against  Great  Britain,  members  of  the  House  were 
known  to  state  that  they  voted  for  it  under  the  sugges- 
tion that  it  would  not  be  a  war  of  ten  days ;  that  it  was 
known  that  Mr.  Foster  had  instructions  to  make  defini- 
tive arrangements  in  his  pocket ;  and  that  the  United 
States  had  only  to  advance  to  the  point  of  war,  and  the 
whole  business  would  be  settled.  And  now  an  army 
which  in  point  of  numbers  Cromwell  might  envy,  greater 
than  that  with  which  Caesar  passed  the  Rubicon,  is  to 
be  helped  through  a  reluctant  Congress,  under  the  sug- 
gestion of  its  being  only  a  parade  force,  to  make  nego- 
tiation successful ;  that  it  is  the  incipient  state  of  a 
project  for  a  grand  pacification  ! 


SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA.          361 

I  warn  also  my  political  friends.  These  gentlemen 
are  apt  to  place  great  reliance  on  their  own  intelligence 
and  sagacity.  Some  of  these  will  tell  you  that  the 
invasion  of  Canada  is  impossible.  They  ask  where  are 
the  men,  where  is  the  money,  to  be  obtained?  And 
they  talk  very  wisely  concerning  common-sense  and 
common  prudence,  and  will  show  with  much  learning 
how  this  attempt  is  an  offence  against  both  the  one  and 
the  other.  But,  sir,  it  has  been  my  lot  to  be  an  observer 
of  the  character  and  conduct  of  the  men  now  in  power, 
for  these  eight  years  past.  And  I  state  without  hesita- 
tion that  no  scheme  ever  was,  or  ever  will  be,  rejected 
by  them  merely  on  account  of  its  running  counter  to 
the  ordinary  dictates  of  common-sense  and  common 
prudence.  On  the  contrary,  on  that  very  account,  I 
believe,  it  more  likely  to  be  both  suggested  and  adopted 
by  them.  And  —  what  may  appear  a  paradox  —  for 
that  very  reason  the  chance  is  rather  increased  that 
it  will  be  successful. 

I  could  illustrate  this  position  twenty  ways.  I  shall 
content  myself  with  remarking  only  upon  two  instances, 
and  those  recent,  —  the  present  war,  and  the  late  inva- 
sion of  Canada.  When  war  against  Great  Britain  was 
proposed  at  the  last  session,  there  were  thousands  in 
these  United  States  —  and,  I  confess  to  you,  I  was  myself 
among  the  number  —  who  believed  not  one  word  of  the 
matter.  I  put  my  trust  in  the  old-fashioned  notions  of 
common-sense  and  common  prudence.  That  a  people 
which  has  been  more  than  twenty  years  at  peace  should 
enter  upon  hostilities  against  a  people  which  had  been 
twenty  years  at  war ;  that  a  nation  whose  army  and 
navy  were  little  more  than  nominal  should  engage  in 


362  SPEECH    ON    THE   INVASION   OF    CANADA. 

war  with  a  nation  possessing  one  of  the  best  appointed 
armies  and  the  most  powerful  marine  on  the  globe ;  that 
a  countiy  to  which  neutrality  had  been  a  perpetual  har- 
vest should  throw  that  great  blessing  away  for  a  contro- 
versy in  which  nothing  was  to  be  gained  and  every 
thing  valuable  put  in  jeopardy,  —  from  these  and  in- 
numerable like  considerations  the  idea  seemed  so  absurd 
that  I  never  once  entertained  it  as  possible.  And  now, 
after  war  has  been  declared,  the  whole  affair  seems  so 
extraordinary,  and  so  utterly  irreconcilable  to  any  pre- 
vious suggestions  of  wisdom  and  duty,  that  I  know  not 
what  to  make  of  it  or  how  to  believe  it.  Even  at  this 
moment  my  mind  is  very  much  in  the  state  of  certain 
Pennsylvania!!  Germans,  of  whom  I  have  heard  it 
asserted  that  they  are  taught  to  believe  by  their  polit- 
ical leaders,  and  do  at  this  moment  consider,  the  allega- 
tion that  war  is  at  present  existing  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  to  be  a  "  federal  falsehood." 

It  was  just  so  with  respect  to  the  invasion  of  Canada. 
I  heard  of  it  last  June.  I  laughed  at  the  idea,  as  did 
multitudes  of  others,  as  an  attempt  too  absurd  for 
serious  examination.  I  was  in  this  case,  again,  beset 
by  common-sense  and  common  prudence.  That  the 
United  States  should  precipitate  itself  upon  the  un- 
offending people  of  that  neighboring  colony,  unmindful 
of  all  previously  subsisting  amities,  because  the  parent 
state,  three  thousand  miles  distant,  had  violated  some 
of  our  commercial  rights  ;  that  we  should  march  inland 
to  defend  our  ships  and  seamen ;  that,  with  raw  troops, 
hastily  collected,  miserably  appointed,  and  destitute  of 
discipline,  we  should  invade  a  country  defended  by 
veteran  forces,  at  least  equal  in  point  of  numbers  to  the 


SPEECH  ON  THE  INVASION  OP   CANADA.  363 

invading  army;  that  bounty  should  be  offered,  and 
proclamations  issued,  inviting  the  subjects  of  a  foreign 
power  to  treason  and  rebellion  under  the  influences  of  a 
quarter  of  the  country  upon  which  a  retort  of  the  same 
nature  was  so  obvious,  so  easy,  and  in  its  consequences 
so  awful,  —  in  every  aspect,  the  design  seemed  so 
fraught  with  danger  and  disgrace  that  it  appeared 
absolutely  impossible  that  it  should  be  seriously  enter- 
tained. Those,  however,  who  reasoned  after  this  manner 
were,  as  the  event  proved,  mistaken.  The  war  was 
declared.  Canada  was  invaded.  We  were  in  haste  to 
plunge  into  these  great  difficulties,  and  we  have  now 
reason,  as  well  as  leisure  enough,  for  regret  and  re- 
pentance. 

The  great  mistake  of  all  those  who  reasoned  concern- 
ing the  war  and  the  invasion  of  Canada,  and  concluded 
that  it  was  impossible  that  either  should  be  seriously 
intended,  resulted  from  this,  that  they  never  took  into 
consideration  the  connection  of  both  those  events  with 
the  great  election  for  the  chief  magistracy  which  was 
then  pending.  It  never  was  sufficiently  considered  by 
them  that  plunging  into  war  with  Great  Britain  was 
among  the  conditions  on  which  support  for  the  presi- 
dency was  made  dependent.  They  did  not  understand 
that  an  invasion  of  Canada  was  to  be,  in  truth,  only  a 
mode  of  carrying  on  an  electioneering  campaign.  But, 
since  events  have  explained  political  purposes,  there  is 
no  difficulty  in  seeing  the  connections  between  projects 
and  interests.  It  is  now  apparent  to  the  most  mole- 
sighted  how  a  nation  may  be  disgraced,  and  yet  a  cabi- 
net attain  its  desired  honors.  All  is  clear.  A  country 
may  be  ruined  in  making  an  administration  happy. 


364          SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA. 

I  said,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  such  strange  schemes, 
apparently  irreconcilable  to  common-sense  and  common 
prudence,  were  on  that  very  account,  more  likely  to  be 
successful.  Sir,  there  is  an  audacity  which  sometimes 
stands  men  instead  both  of  genius  and  strength.  And 
most  assuredly  he  is  most  likely  to  perform  that  which 
no  man  ever  did  before,  and  will  never  be  likely  to  do 
again,  who  has  the  boldness  to  undertake  that  which 
no  man  ever  thought  of  attempting  in  time  past,  and 
no  man  will  ever  think  of  attempting  in  time  future. 
I  would  not,  however,  be  understood  as  intimating  that 
this  cabinet  project  of  invasion  is  impracticable,  either 
as  it  respects  the  'collection  of  means  and  instruments 
or  in  the  ultimate  result.  On  the  contrary,  sir,  I  deem 
both  very  feasible.  Men  may  be  obtained.  For  if  forty 
dollars  bounty  cannot  obtain  them,  a  hundred  dollars 
bounty  may,  and  the  intention  is  explicitly  avowed  not 
to  suffer  the  attainment  of  the  desired  army  to  be  pre- 
vented by  any  vulgar  notions  of  economy.  Money  may 
be  obtained.  What  by  means  of  the  increased  popu- 
larity derived  from  the  augmentation  of  the  navy,  what 
by  opening  subscription  offices  in  the  interior  of  the 
country,  what  by  large  premiums,  the  cupidity  of  the 
moneyed  interest  may  be  tempted  beyond  the  point  of 
patriotic  resistance,  and  all  the  attained  means  being 
diverted  to  the  use  of  the  army,  pecuniary  resources 
may  be  obtained,  ample  at  least  for  the  first  year. 
And,  sir,  let  an  army  of  thirty  thousand  men  be  col- 
lected, let  them  be  put  under  the  command  of  a  popular 
leader,  let  them  be  officered  to  suit  his  purposes,  let 
them  be  flushed  with  victories  and  see  the  fascinating 
career  of  military  glory  opening  upon  them,  and  they 


SPEECH   ON  THE   INVASION  OP   CANADA.          365 

will  not  thereafter  ever  be  deficient  in  resources.  If 
they  cannot  obtain  their  pay  by  your  votes,  they  will 
collect  it  by  their  own  bayonets  ;  and  they  will  not 
rigidly  observe  any  air -lines  or  water-lines  in  enforcing 
their  necessary  levies,  nor  be  stayed  by  abstract  specu- 
lations concerning  right,  or  learned  constitutional  diffi- 
culties. 

I  desire,  therefore,  that  it  may  be  distinctly  under- 
stood, both  by  this  House  and  this  nation,  that  it  is  my 
unequivocal  belief  that  the  invasion  of  Canada,  which 
is  avowed  by  the  cabinet  to  be  its  purpose,  is  intended 
by  it,  —  that  continuance  of  the  war  and  not  peace  is  its 
project.  Yes,  sir,  as  the  French  Emperor  said  concern- 
ing ships  and  colonies,  so  our  cabinet,  the  friends  of  the 
French  Emperor,  may  say,  with  respect  to  Canada 
and  Halifax,  — "  They  enter  into  the  scope  of  its 
policy." 

[Mr.  Quincy  was  here  called  to  order  by  Mr.  Hall,  of 
Georgia,  for  intimating  that  the  members  of  the  cabinet 
were  friends  of  the  French  Emperor. 

MR.  QUINCY  said  that  he  understood  that  the  relations 
of  amity  did  subsist  between  this  country  and  France, 
and  that  in  such  a  state  of  things  he  had  a  right  to 
speak  of  the  American  cabinet  as  the  friends  of  France, 
in  the  same  manner  as  he  had  now  a  right  to  call  them 
the  enemies  of  Great  Britain. 

The  SPEAKER  said  that  the  relations  of  amity  certainly 
did  subsist  between  this  country  and  France,  and  that 
he  did  not  conceive  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
to  be  out  of  order  in  his  expressions ;  that  it  was  im- 
possible to  prevent  gentlemen  from  expressing  them- 
selves so  as  to  convey  an  innuendo.] 


366          SPEECH   ON  THE  INVASION   OP   CANADA. 

MB.  QUINCY  proceeded  :  If,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  gentle- 
man from  Georgia  and  his  political  friends  would  take 
one  thing  into  consideration,  he  and  they  will  have  no 
reason  to  complain  in  case  the  cabinet  be  of  that  im- 
maculate nature  he  supposes.  No  administration,  no 
man,  was  ever  materially  injured  by  any  mere  "  innu- 
endo." The  strength  of  satire  is  the  justness  of  the 
remark,  and  the  only  sting  of  invective  is  the  truth  of 
the  observation. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  discuss  those  topics  which 
naturally  arise  out  of  the  bill  under  consideration  and 
examine  the  proposed  invasion  of  Canada  at  three  dif- 
ferent points  of  view. 

1.  As  a  means  of  canying  on  the  existing  war. 

2.  As  a  means  of  obtaining  an  early  and  honorable 
peace. 

3.  As  a  means  of  advancing  the  personal  and  local 
projects  of  ambition  of  the  members  of  the  American 
cabinet. 

Concerning  the  invasion  of  Canada  as  a  means  of 
carrying  on  the  subsisting  war,  it  is  my  duty  to  speak 
plainly  and  decidedly,  not  only  because  I  herein  express 
my  own  opinions  upon  the  subject,  but,  as  I  conscien- 
tiously believe,  the  sentiments  also  of  a  very  great 
majority  of  that  whole  section  of  country  in  which  I 
have  the  happiness  to  reside.  I  say,  then,  sir,  that  I 
consider  the  invasion  of  Canada  as  a  means  of  carrying 
on  this  war  as  cruel,  wanton,  senseless,  and  wicked. 

You  will  easily  understand,  Mr.  Speaker,  by  this  very 
statement  of  opinion,  that  I  am  not  one  of  that  class  of 
politicians  which  has  for  so  many  years  predominated  in 
the  world,  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.  You  will 


SPEECH   ON    THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA.  367 

readily  believe  that  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  worship 
in  that  temple  where  Condorcet  is  the  high  priest,  and 
Machiavel  the  God.  With  such  politicians  the  end 
always  sanctifies  the  means ;  the  least  possible  good  to 
themselves  perfectly  justifies,  according  to  their  creed, 
the  inflicting  the  greatest  possible  evil  upon  others.  In 
the  judgment  of  such  men,  if  a  corrupt  ministry,  at 
three  thousand  miles  distance,  shall  have  done  them  an 
injury,  it  is  an  ample  cause  to  visit  with  desolation  a 
peaceable  and  unoffending  race  of  men,  their  neigh- 
bors, who  happen  to  be  associated  with  that  ministry  by 
ties  of  mere  political  dependence.  What  though  these 
colonies  be  so  remote  from  the  sphere  of  the  questions 
in  controversy  that  their  ruin  or  prosperity  could  have 
no  possible  influence  upon  the  result?  What  though 
their  cities  offer  no  plunder  ?  What  though  their  con- 
quest can  yield  no  glory  ?  In  their  ruin  there  is  revenge ; 
and  revenge  to  such  politicians  is  the  sweetest  of  all 
morsels.  With  such  men  neither  I,  nor  the  people 
of  that  section  of  country  in  which  I  reside,  hold  any 
communion.  There  is,  between  us  and  them,  no  one 
principle  of  sympathy,  either  in  motive  or  action. 

That  wise,  moral,  reflecting  people  which  constitute 
the  great  mass  of  the  population  of  Massachusetts, 
indeed  of  all  New  England,  look  for  the  sources  of  their 
political  duties  nowhere  else  than  in  those  fountains 
from  which  spring  their  moral  duties.  According  to 
their  estimate  of  human  life  and  its  obligations,  both 
political  and  moral  duties  emanate  from  the  nature  of 
things,  and  from  the  essential  and  eternal  relations 
which  subsist  among  them.  True  it  is  that  a  state  of 
war  gives  the  right  to  seize  and  appropriate  the  property 


368          SPEECH   ON   THE  INVASION   OF   CANADA. 

and  territories  of  an  enemy.  True  it  is  that  the  colonies 
of  a  foreign  power  are  viewed,  according  to  the  law  of 
nations,  in  the  light  of  its  property.  But  in  estimating 
the  propriety  of  carrying  desolation  into  the  peaceful 
abodes  of  their  neighbors,  the  people  of  New  England 
will  not  limit  their  contemplation  to  the  mere  circum- 
stance of  abstract  right,  nor  ask  what  lawyers  and  juris- 
prudists  have  written  or  said,  as  if  this  was  conclusive 
upon  the  subject.  That  people  are  much  addicted  to 
think  for  themselves,  and,  in  canvassing  the  propriety  of 
such  an  invasion,  they  will  consider  the  actual  condition 
of  those  colonies,  their  natural  relations  to  us,  and  the 
effect  which  their  conquest  and  ruin  will  have,  not  only 
upon  the  people  of  those  colonies,  but  upon  themselves, 
and  their  own  liberties  and  constitution.  And,  above 
all,,  what  I  know  will  seem  strange  to  some  of  those  who 
hear  me,  they  will  not  forget  to  apply  to  a  case  occur- 
ring between  nations,  as  far  as  is  practicable,  that  heaven- 
descended  rule  which  the  great  Author  and  Founder 
of  their  religion  has  given  them  for  the  regulation  of 
their  conduct  towards  each  other.  They  will  consider 
it  the  duty  of  these  United  States  to  act  towards  those 
colonies  as  they  would  wish  those  colonies  to  act  in 
exchange  of  circumstances  towards  these  United  States. 
The  actual  condition  of  those  colonies,  and  the  rela- 
tion in  which  they  stood  to  the  United  States  antecedent 
to  the  declaration  of  war,  were  of  this  nature.  Those 
colonies  had  no  connection  with  the  questions  in  dispute 
between  us  and  their  parent  state.  They  had  done  us 
no  injury.  They  meditated  none  to  us.  Between  the 
inhabitants  of  those  colonies  and  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  the  most  friendly  and  mutually  useful 


SPEECH   ON   THE  INVASION   OF   CANADA.          369 

intercourse  subsisted.  The  borderers  on  this  and  those 
on  the  other  side  of  the  St.  Lawrence  and  of  the 
boundary  line  scarcely  realized  that  they  were  subjects 
of  different  governments.  They  interchanged  expres- 
sions and  acts  of  civility.  Intermarriages  took  place 
among  them.  The  Canadians  sometimes  settled  in  the 
United  States.  Sometimes  our  citizens  emigrated  to 
Canada.  After  the  declaration  of  war,  had  they  any 
disposition  to  assail  us  ?  We  have  the  reverse  expressly 
in  evidence.  They  desired  nothing  so  much  as  to  keep 
perfect  the  then  subsisting  relations  of  amity.  Would 
the  conquest  of  those  colonies  shake  the  policy  of  the 
British  Cabinet?  No  man  has  shown  it.  Unqualified 
assertions,  it  is  true,  have  been  made,  but  totally  un- 
supported by  any  evidence  or  even  the  pretence  of 
argument.  On  the  contrary,  nothing  was  more  obvious 
than  that  an  invasion  of  Canada  must  strengthen  the 
ministry  of  Great  Britain  by  the  excitement  and  sym- 
pathy which  would  be  occasioned  in  the  people  of  that 
country,  in  consequence  of  the  sufferings  of  the  innocent 
inhabitants  of  those  colonies  on  account  of  a  dispute  in 
which  they  had  no  concern  and  of  which  they  had 
scarcely  a  knowledge.  All  this  was  anticipated.  All  this 
was  frequently  urged  to  this  House,  at  the  last  and  pre- 
ceding sessions,  as  the  necessary  effect  of  such  a  meas- 
ure. The  event  has  justified  those  predictions.  The  late 
elections  in  Great  Britain  have  terminated  in  the  com- 
plete triumph  of  the  friends  of  the  British  ministry.  In 
effecting  this  change,  the  conduct  of  these  United  States 
in  relation  to  Canada  has  had  undeniably  a  mighty 
influence  by  the  disgust  and  indignation  felt  by  the 
British  people  at  a  step  so  apparently  wanton  and  cruel. 

24 


370          SPEECH   ON    THE   INVASION   OF    CANADA. 

As  there  was  no  direct  advantage  to  be  hoped  from 
the  conquest  of  Canada,  so  also  there  was  none  inci- 
dental. Plunder  there  was  none  ;  at  least  none  which 
would  pay  the  cost  of  the  conquest.  Glory  there  was 
none.  Could  seven  millions  of  people  obtain  glory  by 
precipitating  themselves  upon  half  a  million  and  tram- 
pling them  into  the  dust?  a  giant  obtain  glory  by 
crushing  a  pigmy !  That  giant  must  have  a  pigmy's 
spirit  who  could  reap  or  hope  glory  from  such  an 
achievement. 

Surely  a  people  with  whom  we  were  connected  by  so 
many  natural  and  adventitious  ties  had  some  claims 
upon  our  humanity.  Surely,  if  our  duty  required  that 
they  and  theirs  should  be  sacrificed  to  our  interests  or 
our  passions,  some  regret  mingled  in  the  execution  of 
the  purpose.  We  postponed  the  decree  of  ruin  until 
the  last  moment.  We  hesitated,  we  delayed,  until  longer 
delay  was  dangerous.  Alas,  sir  !  there  was  nothing  of 
this  kind  or  character  in  the  conduct  of  the  cabinet. 
The  war  had  not  yet  been  declared  when  General  Hull 
had  his  instructions  to  put  in  train  the  work  of  destruc- 
tion. There  was  an  eagerness  for  the  blood  of  the 
Canadians,  a  headlong  precipitation  for  their  ruin, 
which  indicated  any  thing  else  rather  than  feelings  of 
humanity  or  visitings  of  nature  on  account  of  their  con- 
dition. Our  armies  were  on  their  march  for  their  fron- 
tier, while  yet  peace  existed  between  this  country  and 
the  parent  State  ;  and  the  invasion  was  obstinately  pur- 
sued after  a  knowledge  that  the  chief  ground  of  contro- 
versy was  settled  by  the  abandonment  of  the  British 
Orders  in  Council,  and  after  nothing  remained  but  a  stale 
ground  of  dispute,  which,  however  important  in  itself, 


SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION  OF   CANADA.          371 

was  of  a  nature  for  which  no  man  has  ever  yet  pretended 
that  for  it  alone  war  would  have  been  declared.  Did 
ever  one  government  exhibit  towards  any  people  a  more 
bloody  and  relentless  spirit  of  rancor  ?  Tell  not  me  of 
petty  advantages,  of  remote  and  possibly  useful  contin- 
gencies, which  might  arise  from  the  devastation  of  those 
colonies.  .Show  any  advantage  which  justifies  that 
dreadful  vial  of  wrath,  which,  if  the  intention  of  the 
American  cabinet  had  been  fulfilled,  would  at  this  day 
have  been  poured  out  upon  the  heads  of  the  Canadians. 
It  is  not  owing  to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  American 
administration  if  the  bones  of  the  Canadians  are  not  at 
this  hour  mingled  with  the  ashes  of  their  habitations. 
It  is  easy  enough  to  make  an  excuse  for  any  purpose. 
When  a  victim  is  destined  to  be  immolated,  every  hedge 
presents  sticks  for  the  sacrifice.  The  lamb  who  stands 
at  the  mouth  of  the  stream  will  always  trouble  the 
water,  if  you  take  the  account  of  the  wolf  who  stands 
at  the  source  of  it.  But  show  a  good  to  us  bearing 
any  proportion  to  the  multiplied  evils  proposed  to  be 
visited  upon  them.  There  is  none.  Never  was  there 
an  invasion  of  any  country  worse  than  this,  in  point  of 
moral  principle,  since  the  invasion  of  the  West  Indies 
by  the  buccaneers,  or  that  of  these  United  States  by 
Captain  Kidd.  Indeed,  both  Kidd  and  the  buccaneers 
had  more  apology  for  their  deed  than  the  American 
cabinet.  They  had  at  least  the  hope  of  plunder.  But 
in  this  case  there  is  not  even  the  poor  refuge  of  cupidity. 
We  have  heard  great  lamentations  about  the  disgrace  of 
our  arms  on  the  frontier.  Why,  sir,  the  disgrace  of  our 
arms  on  the  frontier  is  terrestrial  glory  in  comparison 
with  the  disgrace  of  the  attempt.  The  whole  atrnos- 


372          SPEECH   ON   THE  INVASION  OF  CANADA. 

phere  rings  with  the  utterance,  from  the  other  side  of 
the  House,  of  this  word,  "  Glory,  glory,"  in  connection 
with  this  invasion.  What  glory  ?  Is  it  the  glory  of  the 
tiger,  which  lifts  his  jaws,  all  foul  and  bloody,  from  the 
bowels  of  his  victim,  and  roars  for  his  companions  of 
the  wood  to  come  and  witness  his  prowess  and  his 
spoils  ?  Such  is  the  glory  of  Genghis  Khan  and  of 
Bonaparte.  Be  such  glory  far,  very  far,  from  my  coun- 
try. Never,  never  may  it  be  accursed  with  such  fame. 

"  Fame  is  no  plant  that  grows  on  mortal  soil, 
Nor  in  the  glistering  foil 
Set  off  to  the  world,  nor  in  broad  rumor  lies ; 
But  lives  and  spreads  aloft  by  those  pure  eyes 
And  perfect  witness  of  all-judging  Jove, 
As  he  pronounces  lastly  on  each  deed." 

May  such  fame  as  this  be  my  country's  meed ! 

But  the  wise  and  thoughtful  people  of  our  northern 
section  will  not  confine  their  reflections  to  the  duties 
which  result  from  the  actual  condition  of  those  colonies 
and  their  general  relations  to  the  United  States.  They 
will  weigh  the  duties  the  people  of  the  United  States 
owe  to  themselves,  and  contemplate  the  effect  which  the 
subjugation  of  those  Canadians  will  have  upon  our  own 
liberties  and  Constitution.  Sir,  it  requires  but  little 
experience  in  the  nature  of  the  human  character,  and 
but  a  very  limited  acquaintance  with  the  history  of 
man,  to  be  satisfied  that  with  the  conquest  of  the 
Canadas  the  liberties  and  Constitution  of  this  country 
perish. 

Of  all  nations  in  the  world  this  nation  is  the  last 
which  ought  to  admit  among  its  purposes  the  design  of 
foreign  conquests.  States  such  as  are  these,  connected 


SPEECH  ON  THE   INVASION  OF   CANADA.         373 

by  ties  so  peculiar,  into  whose  combination  there  enters 
necessarily  numerous  jealousies  and  fears,  whose  inter- 
ests are  not  always  reconcilable,  and  the  passions,  edu- 
cation, and  character  of  whose  people  on  many  accounts 
are  repugnant  to  each  other,  with  a  Constitution  made 
merely  for  defence,  it  is  impossible  that  an  association 
of  independent  sovereignties,  standing  in  such  relations 
to  each  other,  should  not  have  the  principles  of  its  Union 
and  the  hopes  of  its  Constitution  materially  affected  by 
the  collection  of  a  large  military  force,  and  its  employ- 
ment in  the  subjugation  of  neighboring  territories.  It 
is  easy  to  see  that  an  army  collected  in  such  a  state  of 
society  as  that  which  exists  in  this  country,  where  wages 
are  high  and  subsistence  easily  to  be  obtained,  must  be 
composed,  so  far  as  respects  the  -  soldiery,  for  the  most 
part  of  the  refuse  of  the  country ;  and,  as  it  respects 
the  officers,  —  with  some  honorable  exceptions,  indeed, — 
must  consist  in  a  considerable  degree  of  men  desperate 
sometimes  in  fortune,  at  others  in  reputation,  "  choice 
spirits,"  men  "  tired  of  the  dull  pursuits  of  civil  life," 
who  have  not  virtue  or  talents  to  rise  in  a  calm  and  set- 
tled state  of  things,  and  who,  all  other  means  of  advance- 
ment or  support  wanting  or  failing,  take  to  the  sword. 
A  body  of  thirty  or  fifty  thousand  such  men  combined, 
armed  and  under  a  popular  leader,  is  a  very  formidable 
force.  They  want  only  discipline  and  service  to  make 
them  veterans.  Opportunity  to  acquire  these  Canada 
will  afford.  The  army  which  advances  to  the  walls  of 
Quebec,  in  the  present  condition  of  Canadian  prepara- 
tion, must  be  veteran.  And  a  veteran  army  under  a 
popular  leader,  flushed  with  victory,  each  individual 
realizing  that  while  the  body  remains  combined  he  may 


374          SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION    OF    CANADA. 

be  something,  and  possibly  very  great,  that  if  dissolved 
he  sinks  into  insignificance,  will  not  be  disbanded  by  vote. 
They  will  consult  with  one  another,  and  with  their 
beloved  chieftain  upon  this  subject,  and  not  trouble 
themselves  about  the  advice  of  the  old  people  who  are 
knitting  and  weaving  in  the  chimney-corners  at  Wash- 
ington. Let  the  American  people  receive  this  as  an 
undoubted  truth  which  experience  will  verify  :  who- 
ever plants  the  American  standard  on  the  walls  of  Que- 
bec conquers  it  for  himself,  and  not  for  the  people  of 
these  United  States.  Whoever  lives  to  see  that  event 
—  may  my  head  be  low  in  the  dust  before  it  happen  !  — 
will  witness  a  dynasty  established  in  that  country  by 
the  sword.  He  will  see  a  king  or  an  emperor,  duke- 
doms and  earldoms  and  baronies  distributed  to  the 
officers,  and  knights'  fees  bestowed  on  the  soldiery. 
And  such  an  army  will  not  trouble  itself  about  geo- 
graphical lines  in  portioning  out  the  divisions  of  its  new 
empire,  and  will  run  the  parallels  of  its  power  by  other 
steel  than  that  of  the  compass.  When  that  event  hap- 
pens, the  people  of  New  England,  if  they  mean  to  be 
free,  must  have  a  force  equal  to  defend  themselves 
against  such  an  army.  And  a  military  force  equal  to 
this  object  will  itself  be  able  to  enslave  the  country. 

Mr.  Speaker,  when  I  contemplate  the  character  and 
consequences  of  this  invasion  of  Canada,  when  I  reflect 
upon  its  criminality  and  its  danger  to  the  peace  and  lib- 
erty of  this  once  happy  country,  I  thank  the  great 
Author  and  Source  of  all  virtue  that,  through  his  grace, 
that  section  of  country  in  which  I  have  the  happiness  to 
reside  is  in  so  great  a  degree  free  from  the  iniquity  of 
this  transgression.  I  speak  it  with  pride  :  the  people  of 


SPEECH   ON   THE    INVASION   OF   CANADA.          375 

that  section  have  done  what  they  could  to  vindicate 
themselves  and  their  children  from  the  burden  of  this 
sin.  That  whole  section  has  risen,  almost  as  one  man, 
for  the  purpose  of  driving  from  power  by  one  great  con- 
stitutional effort  the  guilty  authors  of  this  war.  If  they 
have  failed,  it  has  been,  not  through  the  want  of  will  or 
of  exertion,  but  in  consequence  of  the  weakness  of  their 
political  power.  When  in  the  usual  course  of  divine 
providence,  who  punishes  nations  as  well  as  individuals, 
his  destroying  angel  shall  on  this  account  pass  over  this 
country,  —  and,  sooner  or  later,  pass  it  will,  —  I  may  be 
permitted  to  hope  that  over  New  England  his  hand  will 
be  stayed.  Our  souls  are  not  steeped  in  the  blood 
which  has  been  shed  in  this  war.  The  spirits  of  the 
unhappy  men  who  have  been  sent  to  an  untimely  audit 
have  borne  to  the  bar  of  divine  justice  no  accusations 
against  us. 

This  opinion  concerning  the  principle  of  this  invasion 
of  Canada  is  not  peculiar  to  me.  Multitudes  who 
approve  the  war  detest  it.  I  believe  this  sentiment  is 
entertained,  without  distinction  of  parties,  by  almost  all 
the  moral  sense  and  nine-tenths  of  the  intelligence  of 
the  whole  northern  section  of  the  United  States.  I 
know  that  men  from  that  quarter  of  the  country  will 
tell  you  differently.  Stories  of  a  very  different  kind  are 
brought  by  all  those  who  come  trooping  to  Washington 
for  place,  appointments,  and  emoluments  ;  men  who  will 
say  any  thing  to  please  the  ear,  or  do  any  thing  to  please 
the  eye,  of  Majesty,  for  the  sake  of  those  fat  contracts 
and  gifts  which  it  scatters  ;  men  whose  fathers,  brothers, 
and  cousins  are  provided  for  by  the  departments  ;  whose 
full-grown  children  are  at  suck  at  the  money-distilling 


376  SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA. 

breasts  of  the  Treasury  ;  the  little  men  who  sigh  after 
great  offices ;  those  who  have  judgeships  in  hand  or 
judgeships  in  promise  ;  toads  that  live  upon  the  vapor 
of  the  palace  ;  that  stare  and  wonder  at  all  the  fine 
sights  which  they  see  there,  and  most  of  all  wonder  at 
themselves,  —  how  they  got  there  to  see  them.  These 
men  will  tell  you  that  New  England  applauds  this 
invasion. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  look  at  the  elections.  What  is  the 
language  they  speak  ?  The  present  tenant  of  the  chief 
magistracy  rejected  by  that  whole  section  of  country, 
with  the  exception  of  a  single  State,  unanimously. 
And  for  whom  ?  In  favor  of  a  man,  out  of  the  circle  of 
his  own  State,  without  much  influence  and  personally 
almost  unknown :  in  favor  of  a  man  against  whom  the 
prevailing  influences  in  New  England  had  previously 
strong  political  prejudices  ;  and  with  whom,  at  the  time 
of  giving  him  their  support,  they  had  no  political  under- 
standing :  in  favor  of  a  man  whose  merits,  whatever  in 
other  respects  they  might  be,  were  brought  into  notice 
in  the  first  instance,  chiefly,  so  far  as  that  election  was 
concerned,  by  their  opinion  of  the  utter  want  of  merit 
of  the  man  whose  re-election  they  opposed. 

Among  the  causes  of  that  universal  disgust  which 
pervaded  all  New  England  at  the  administration  and  its 
supporters  was  the  general  dislike  and  contempt  of  this 
invasion  of  Canada.  I  have  taken  some  pains  to  learn 
the  sentiments  which  prevail  on  this  subject  in  New 
England,  and  particularly  among  its  yeomanry,  the 
pride  and  the  hope  of  that  country.  I  have  conversed 
with  men,  resting  on  their  spades  and  leaning  on  the 
handles  of  their  ploughs,  while  they  relaxed  for  a 


SPEECH  ON  THE  INVASION   OF   CANADA.          377 

moment  from  the  labor  by  which  they  support  their 
families,  and  which  gives  such  a  hardihood  and  charac- 
ter to  their  virtues.  They  asked,  "  What  do  we  want 
of  Canada  ?  We  have  land  enough.  Do  we  want 
plunder  ?  There  is  not  enough  of  that  to  pay  the  cost 
of  getting  it.  Are  our  ocean  rights  there  ?  or  is  it  there 
our  seamen  are  held  in  captivity?  Are  new  States 
desired  ?  We  have  plenty  of  those  already  ?  Are  they 
to  be  held  as  conquered  territories  ?  This  will  require 
an  army  there  :  then,  to  be  safe,  we  must  have  an  army 
here ;  and,  with  a  standing  army,  what  security  for  our 
liberties  ?  " 

These  are  no  fictitious  reasonings.  They  are  the 
suggestions,  I  doubt  not,  of  thousands  and  tens  of  thou- 
sands of  our  hardy  New  England  yeomanry,  —  men 
who  when  their  country  calls,  at  any  wise  and  real  exi- 
gency, will  start  from  their  native  soils  and  throw  their 
shields  over  their  liberties,  like  the  soldiers  of  Cadmus, 
"  armed  in  complete  steel ; "  yet  men  who  have  heard 
the  winding  of  your  horn  to  the  Canada  campaign  with 
the  same  apathy  and  indifference  with  which  they  would 
hear  in  the  streets  the  trilling  of  a  jews-harp  or  the 
tinkling  of  a  banjo. 

The  plain  truth  is,  that  the  people  of  New  England 
have  no  desire  for  Canada.  Their  moral  sentiment 
does  not  justify,  and  they  will  not  countenance,  its  in- 
vasion. I  have  thus  stated  the  grounds  on  which  they 
deem,  and  I  have  felt  myself  bound  to  maintain,  that 
this  contemplated  invasion  of  that  territory  is,  as  it 
respects  the  Canadians,  wanton  and  cruel;  because  it 
inflicts  the  greatest  imaginable  evils  on  them  without 
any  imaginable  benefit  to  us  ;  that,  as  it  respects  the 


378          SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA. 

United  States,  such  an  invasion  is  senseless,  because 
ultimately  ruinous  to  our  own  political  safety;  and 
wicked,  because  it  is  an  abuse  of  the  blessings  of  Divine 
Providence,  and  a  manifest  perversion  of  his  multiplied 
bounties  to  the  purpose  of  desolating  an  innocent  and 
unoffending  people. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  the  next  view  I  proposed  to 
take  of  this  project  of  invading  Canada,  and  consider  it 
in  the  light  of  a  means  to  obtain  an  early  and  honorable 
peace.  It  is  said,  and  this  is  the  whole  argument  in 
favor  of  this  invasion  in  this  aspect,  that  the  only  way 
to  negotiate  successfully  with  Great  Britain  is  to  appeal 
to  her  fears,  and  raise  her  terrors  for  the  fate  of  her 
colonies.  I  shall  here  say  nothing  concerning  the  diffi- 
culties of  executing  this  scheme,  nor  about  the  possi- 
bility of  a  deficiency  both  in  men  and  money.  I  will 
not  dwell  on  the  disgust  of  all  New  England,  nor  on 
the  influence  of  this  disgust  with  respect  to  your  efforts. 
I  will  admit  for  the  present  that  an  army  may  be  raised, 
and  that  during  the  first  years  it  may  be  supported  by 
loans,  and  that  afterwards  it  will  support  itself  by 
bayonets.  I  will  admit  farther,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  success  is  possible,  and  that  Great  Britain 
realizes  the  practicability  of  it.  Now,  all  this  being 
admitted,  I  maintain  that  the  surest  of  all  possible  ways 
to  defeat  any  hope  from  negotiation  is  the  threat  of 
such  an  invasion,  and  an  active  preparation  to  execute 
it.  Those  must  be  very  young  politicians  —  their  pin- 
feathers  not  yet  grown,  and,  however  they  may  flutter 
on  this  floor,  they  are  not  yet  fledged  for  any  high  or 
distant  flight  —  who  think  that  threats  and  appealing 
to  fear  are  the  ways  of  producing  a  disposition  to  nego- 


SPEECH   ON   THE  INVASION   OF   CANADA.          379 

tiate  in  Great  Britain,  or  in  any  other  nation  which  under- 
stands what  it  owes  to  its  own  safety  and  honor.  No 
nation  can  yield  to  threat  what  it  might  yield  to  a  sense 
of  interest ;  because,  in  that  case,  it  has  no  credit  for  what 
it  grants,  and,  what  is  more,  loses  something  in  point  of 
reputation  from  the  imbecility  which  concessions  made 
under  such  circumstances  indicate.  Of  all  nations  in 
the  world,  Great  Britain  is  the  last  to  yield  to  consider- 
ations of  fear  and  terror.  The  whole  history  of  the 
British  nation  is  one  tissue  of  facts  tending  to  show  the 
spirit  with  which  she  meets  all  attempts  to  bully  and 
browbeat  her  into  measures  inconsistent  with  her  inter- 
ests or  her  policy.  No  nation  ever  before  made  such 
sacrifices  of  the  present  to  the  future.  No  nation  ever 
built  her  greatness  more  systematically  on  the  principle 
of  a  haughty  self-respect,  which  yields  nothing  to  sug- 
gestions of  danger,  and  which  never  permits  either  her 
ability  or  inclination  to  maintain  her  rights  to  be  sus- 
pected. In  all  negotiations,  therefore,  with  that  power, 
it  may  be  taken  as  a  certain  truth  that  your  chance  of 
failure  is  just  in  proportion  to  the  publicity  and  obtru- 
siveness  of  threats  and  appeals  to  fear. 

The  American  cabinet  understand  all  this  very  well, 
although  this  House  may  not.  Their  policy  is  founded 
upon  it.  The  project  of  this  bill  is  to  put  at  a  still 
further  distance  the  chance  of  amicable  arrangement,  in 
consequence  of  the  dispositions  which  the  threat  of 
invasion  of  their  colonies  and  attempt  to  execute  it  will 
excite  in  the  British  nation  and  ministry.  I  have  some 
claim  to  speak  concerning  the  policy  of  the  men  who 
constitute  the  American  cabinet.  For  eight  years  I 
have  studied  their  history,  characters,  and  interests.  I 


380          SPEECH   ON  THE   INVASION   OF  CANADA. 

know  no  reasons  why  I  should  judge  them  severely, 
except  such  as  arise  from  those  inevitable  conclusions 
which  avowed  principles  and  distinct  conduct  have 
impressed  upon  the  mind.  I  say  then,  sir,  without 
hesitation,  that  in  my  judgment  the  embarrassment  of 
our  relations  with  Great  Britain,  and  keeping  alive 
between  this  country  and  that  a  root  of  bitterness,  has 
been,  is,  and  will  continue  to  be,  a  main  principle  of  the 
policy  of  this  American  cabinet.  They  want  not  a 
solid  settlement  of  our  differences.  If  the  nation  will 
support  them  in  it,  they  will  persevere  in  the  present 
war.  If  it  will  not,  some  general  arrangements  will  be 
the  resort,  which  will  leave  open  opportunities  for  dis- 
cord, which,  on  proper  occasions,  will  be  improved  by 
them.  I  shall  give  my  reasons  for  this  opinion.  I  wish 
no  sentiments  of  mine  to  have  influence  any  farther 
than  the  reasons  upon  which  they  are  founded  justify. 
They  are  public  reasons,  arising  from  undeniable  facts : 
the  nation  will  judge  for  itself. 

The  men  who  now,  and  who  for  these  twelve  years 
past  have,  to  the  misfortune  of  this  country,  guided  its 
councils  and  directed  its  destinies,  came  into  power  on 
a  tide  which  was  raised  and  supported  by  elements  con- 
stituted of  British  prejudices  and  British  antipathies. 
The  parties  which  grew  up  in  this  nation  took  their 
origin  and  form  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the 
treaty  negotiated  by  Mr.  Jay  in  1794.  The  opposition 
of  that  day,  of  which  the  men  now  in  power  were  the 
leaders,  availed  themselves  very  dexterously  of  the 
relics  of  that  hatred  towards  the  British  name  which 
remained  after  the  revolutionary  war.  By  perpetually 
blowing  upon  the  embers  of  the  ancient  passions  they 


SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION  OF   CANADA.  381 

excited  a  flame  in  the  nation ;  and,  by  systematically 
directing  it  against  the  honorable  men  who  at  that  time 
conducted  its   affairs,    the   strength   and   influence    of 
those  men  were  impaired.     The  embarrassments  with 
France,  which  succeeded  in  1798  and  1799,  were  turned 
to  the  same  account.     Unfortunately  those  who  then 
conducted  public  affairs  attended  less  to  the  appearances 
of   things  than  to  their  natures,  and  considered  more 
what  was  due  to  their  country  than  was  prudent  in  the 
state  of   the  prejudices  and   jealousies  of   the  people, 
thus  artfully  excited  against  them.     They  went  on  in 
the  course  they  deemed  right,  regardless  of  personal 
consequences,  and  blind  to  the  evidences  of  discontent 
which  surrounded  them.     The  consequences   are  well 
known.     The  supreme  power  in  these    United    States 
passed  into  the  hands  which  now  possess  it,  in  which  it 
has  been   continued  down  to   the  present  time.     This 
transfer  of  power  was  effected  undeniabty  principally  on 
the   very  ground  of  these   prejudices   and   antipathies 
which  existed  in  the  nation  against  Great  Britain,  and 
which  had  been  artfully  fomented  by  the  men  now  in 
power  and  their  adherents,  and  directed  against  their 
predecessors.     These  prejudices  and  passions  constitute 
the  main  pillar  of   the  power  of  these  men.     In  my 
opinion  they  never  will  permit  it  to  be  wholly  taken 
away  from  them.     They  never  will  permit  the  people 
of   this   country   to   look   at   them   and   their  political 
opponents  free  of  that  jaundice  with  which  they  have 
carefully   imbued   the   vision   of    their   own   partisans. 
They  never  will  consent  to  be  weighed  in  a  balance  of 
mere  merits,  but  will  always  take  care  to  keep  in  reserve 
some  portion  of  these  British  antipathies  to  throw  as  a 


382  SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION    OF    CANADA. 

make-weight  into  the  opposite  scale  whenever  they  find 
their  own  sinking.  To  continue,  multiply,  strengthen, 
and  extend  these  props  of  their  power  has  been  and 
still  is  the  object  of  the  daily  study  and  the  nightly 
vigils  of  our  American  cabinet.  For  this  the  British 
treaty  was  permitted  to  expire  by  its  own  limitation  ; 
notwithstanding  the  state  of  things  which  the  treaty  of 
Amiens  had  produced  in  Europe  was  so  little  like  per- 
manent peace  that  the  occurrence  of  the  fact  on  Which 
the  force  of  that  limitation  depended  might  easily  have 
been  questioned  with  but  little  violence  to  the  terms 
and  in  perfect  conformity  with  its  spirit ;  for  this  a 
renewal  of  the  treaty  of  1794  was  refused  by  our 
cabinet,  although  proffered  by  the  British  government ; 
for  this  the  treaty  of  1807,  negotiated  by  Messrs. 
Monroe  and  Pinkney,  was  rejected;  for  this,  in  1811, 
fifty  thousand  dollars  were  paid  out  of  the  public 
Treasury  to  John  Henry  for  the  obvious  purpose  of 
enabling  the  American  cabinet  to  calumniate  their 
political  opponents  on  this  very  point  of  British  influ- 
ence upon  the  eve  of  elections  occurring  in  Massachu- 
setts, on  the  event  of  which  the  perpetuation  of  their 
own  power  was  materially  dependent.  Mr.  Speaker, 
such  men  as  these  never  will  permit  a  state  of  things  to 
pass  away  so  essential  to  their  influence.  Be  it  peace 
or  war,  arrangement  or  hostility,  the  association  of  these 
British  antipathies  in  the  minds  of  the  mass  of  the  com- 
munity with  the  characters  of  their  political  opponents 
constitutes  the  great  magazine  of  their  power.  This 
composes  their  whole  political  larder.  It  is,  like  Lord 
Peter's  brown  loaf,  their  "  beef,  mutton,  veal,  venison, 
partridge,  plum-pudding,  and  custard." 


SPEECH   ON   THE  INVASION   OF   CANADA.  383 

From  the  time  of  the  expiration  of  the  British  treaty 
of  1794,  and  the  refusal  to  renew  it,  the  American  cab- 
inet have  been  careful  to  precede  negotiation  with  some 
circumstance  or  other  calculated  to  make  it  fail,  or  at 
least  to  make  a  successful  result  less  certain.  Thus,  in 
1806,  when,  from  the  plunder  of  our  commerce  by  Brit- 
ish cruisers,  a  negotiation,  notwithstanding  the  obvious 
reluctance  of  the  cabinet,  was  forced  upon  them  by  the 
clamors  of  the  merchants,  the  non-importation  law  of 
April  in  that  year  was  obtruded  between  the  two  coun- 
tries. In  the  course  of  the  debate  upon  that  law,  it 
was  opposed  upon  this  very  ground,  that  it  was  an  ob- 
stacle to  a  successful  negotiation.  It  was  advocated, 
like  the  bill  now  under  discussion,  as  an  aid  to  success- 
ful negotiation.  It  was  also  said,  by  the  opponents  of 
that  law  of  1806,  that  Great  Britain  would  not  nego- 
tiate under  its  operation,  and  that  arrangement,  at- 
tempted under  proper  auspices,  could  not  be  difficult, 
from  the  known  interests  and  inclinations  of  that  nation. 
What  was  the  consequence  ?  Precisely  that  which  was 
anticipated.  The  then  President  of  the  United  States 
was  necessitated  to  come  to  this  House  and  recommend 
a  suspension  of  the  operation  of  that  law,  upon  the 
openly  avowed  ground  of  its  being  expedient  to  give 
that  evidence  of  a  conciliatory  disposition,  really  be- 
cause, if  permitted  to  continue  in  operation,  negotiation 
was  found  to  be  impracticable.  After  the  suspension 
of  that  law  a  treaty  was  formed.  The  merits  of  that 
treaty  it  is  not  within  the  scope  of  my  present  argument 
to  discuss.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  it  was  deemed  good 
enough  to  receive  the  sanction  of  Messrs.  Monroe  and 
Pinkney.  It  arrived  in  America,  and  was  rejected  by 


384          SPEECH   ON   THE  INVASION   OF   CANADA. 

the  authority  of  a  single  individual,1  apparently  because 
of  the  insufficiency  of  the  arrangement  about  impress- 
ment, really  because  a  settlement  with  Great  Britain  at 
that  time  did  not  "  enter,  into  the  scope  of  the  policy  " 
of  the  American  cabinet.  The  negotiation  was,  indeed, 
renewed  ;  but  it  was  followed  up  with  the  enforcement 
of  the  non-importation  law  and  the  enactment  of  the 
embargo ;  both  which  steps  were  stated  at  the  time,  as 
they  proved  afterwards,  to  be  of  a  nature  to  make  hope- 
less successful  negotiation. 

In  this  state,  the  executive  power  of  this  nation  for- 
mally passed  into  new  hands,  but  substantially  remained 
under  the  old  principles  of  action  and  subject  to  the 
former  influences.  It  was  desirable  that  a  fund  of  pop- 
ularity should  be  acquired  for  the  new  administration. 
Accordingly  an  arrangement  was  made  with  Mr.  Erskine, 
and  no  questions  asked  concerning  the  adequacy  of  his 
powers.  But,  lest  this  circumstance  should  not  defeat 
the  proposed  arrangement,  a  clause  was  inserted  in  the 
correspondence,  containing  an  insult  to  the  British  gov- 
ernment, offered  in  the  face  of  the  world,  such  as  no 
man  ever  gave  to  a  private  individual  whom  he  did  not 
mean  to  offend.  The  President  of  the  United  States 
said  in  so  many  words  to  the  person  at  the  head  of 
that  government  that  he  did  not  understand  what  be- 
longed to  his  own  honor  as  well  as  it  was  understood 
by  the  President  himself.  The  effect  of  such  language 
was  natural  ;  it  was  necessary  ;  it  could  not  but  render  the 
British  government  averse  to  sanction  Erskine's  arrange- 
ment. The  effect  was  anticipated  by  Mr.  Robert  Smith, 

1  President  Jefferson,  wlio  rejected  the  treaty,  without  submitting  it  to 
the  Senate,  as  he  was  constitutionally  bound  to  do,  or  even  consulting  his 
own  cabinet. 


SPEECH  ON   THE  INVASION   OF  CANADA.          385 

then  acting  as  Secretary  of  State.  He  objected  to  its 
being  inserted  ;  but  it  was  done  in  the  President's  own 
handwriting.  As  Mr.  Erskine's  authority  was  denied 
by  the  British  government,  it  is  well  known  that  in  fact 
on  the  point  of  this  indignity  the  fate  of  that  arrangement 
turned.  Can.  any  one  doubt  that  our  cabinet  meant 
that  it  should  have  this  effect  ?  I  send  you  word,  Mr. 
Speaker,  "  that  I  have  agreed  with  your  messenger,  and 
wish  you  to  ratify  it.  I  think  you,  however,  no  gentle- 
man notwithstanding,  and  that  you  do  not  understand 
as  well  as  I  what  is  due  to  your  own  honor."  What 
think  you,  sir  ?  Would  you  ratify  such  an  arrangement 
if  you  could  help  it  ?  Does  a  proffer  of  settlement,  con- 
nected with  such  language,  look  like  a  disposition  or  an 
intention  to  conciliate  ?  I  appeal  to  the  common-sense 
of  mankind  on  the  point. 

The  whole  state  of  the  relations  induced  between  this 
country  and  Great  Britain,  in  consequence  of  our  em- 
bargo and  restrictive  systems,  was  in  fact  a  standing 
appeal  to  the  fears  of  the  British  Cabinet ;  for,  notwith- 
standing those  svstems  were  equal  in  their  terms  so  far 

O  v  J 

as  they  affected  foreign  powers,  yet  their  operation  was 
notoriously  almost  wholly  upon  Great  Britain.  To  yield 
to  that  pressure,  or  do  any  thing  which  should  foster  in 
this  country  the  idea  that  it  was  an  effectual  weapon  of 
hostility,  was  nothing  more  than  conceding  that  she  was 
dependent  upon  us,  —  a  concession  which  when  once 
made  by  her  was  certain  to  encourage  a  resort  to  it  by 
us  on  every  occasion  of  difficulty  between  the  two  na- 
tions. Reasoning,  therefore,  upon  the  known  nature  of 
things,  and  the  plain  interests  of  Great  Britain,  it  was 
foretold  that  during  its  continuance  she  would  concede 

25 


386  SPEECH    ON    THE   INVASION    OF    CANADA. 

nothing,  and  the  event  has  justified  those  predictions. 
But  the  circumstance  the  most  striking,  and  that  fur- 
nishing the  most  conclusive  evidence  of  the  indisposition 
of  the  American  cabinet  to  peace  and  their  determina- 
tion to  carry  on  the  war,  is  that  connected  with  the 
pretended  repeal  of  the  French  decrees,  in  November, 
1810,  and  the  consequent  revival,  in  1811,  of  our  re- 
strictive system  against  Great  Britain. 

If  ever  a  body  of  men  were  pledged  to  any  thing, 
the  American  cabinet,  its  friends  and  supporters,  were 
pledged  for  the  truth  of  this  fact,  that  the  French 
decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan  were  definitively  repealed, 
as  it  respects  the  United  States,  on  the  1st  of  Novem- 
ber, 1810.  If  ever  any  body  of  men  staked  their  whole 
stock  of  reputation  upon  any  point,  our  cabinet  did  it 
on  this.  They  and  their  partisans  asserted  and  raved. 
They  denounced  every  man  as  a  British  partisan  who 
denied  it.  They  declared  the  restrictive  system  was 
revived  by  the  mere  effect  of  the  proclamation.  But, 
lest  the  courts  of  law  should  not  be  as  subservient  to 
their  policy  as  might  be  wished,  they  passed  the  law  of 
the  2d  March,  1811,  upon  the  basis  of  this  repeal,  and 
of  its  being  definitive.  The  British  government  refused, 
however,  to  recognize  the  validity  of  this  repeal,  and 
denied  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  were  repealed 
on  the  1st  November,  1810,  as  our  cabinet  asserted. 
Thus,  then,  stood  the  argument  between  the  British 
ministry  and  our  cabinet.  The  British  ministry  admitted 
that,  if  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  were  repealed  on 
the  1st  November,  1810,  they  were  bound  to  revoke 
their  Orders  in  Council.  But  they  denied  that  repeal 
to  exist.  Our  cabinet,  on  the  other  hand,  admitted 


SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA.  387 

that,  if  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  were  not  repealed 
on  the  1st  November,  1810,  the  restrictive  system  ought 
not  to  have  been  revived  against  Great  Britain.  But 
they  asserted  that  repeal  to  exist.  This  was  virtually 
the  state  of  the  question  between  the  two  countries  on 
this  point.  And  it  is  agreed,  on  all  hands,  that  this 
refusal  of  the  British  government  to  repeal  their  Orders 
in  Council,  after  the  existence  of  the  repeal  of  the 
Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  as  asserted  by  the  American 
cabinet,  was  the  cause  of  the  declaration  of  war  between 
the  two  countries.  So  that,  in  truth,  the  question  of 
the  right  of  war  depended  upon  the  existence  of  that 
fact;  for  if  that  fact  did  not  exist,  even  the  American 
cabinet  did  not  pretend  that,  in  the  position  in  which 
things  then  stood,  they  had  a  right  to  declare  war  on 
account  of  the  continuance  of  the  British  Orders  in 
Council. 

Now,  what  is  the  truth,  in  relation  to  this  all-impor- 
tant fact,  the  definitive  repeal  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees  on  the  1st  November,  1810, — the  pivot  upon 
which  turned  the  revival  of  the  restrictive  system  and 
our  declaration  of  war  ?  Why,  sir,  the  event  has  proved 
that,  in  relation  to  that  fact,  the  American  cabinet  was, 
to  say  the  least,  in  an  error.  Bonaparte  himself,  in  a 
decree  dated  the  28th  of  April,  1811,  but  not  promul- 
gated till  a  year  afterwards,  distinctly  declares  that  the 
Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  were  not  definitively  repealed, 
as  relates  to  the  United  States,  on  the  1st  November, 
1810.  He  also  declares  that  they  are  then,  on  that 
28th  of  April,  for  the  first  time  repealed.  And  he 
founds  the  issuing  of  this  decree  on  the  act  of  the 
American  Congress  of  the  2d  of  March,  1811, —  that 


SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA. 

very  act  which  was  passed  upon  the  ground  of  the 
definitive  repeal  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  on  the 
1st  November,  1810 ;  and  which,  it  is  agreed  on  all 
sides,  the  American  government  were  bound  in  honor 
not  to  pass,  except  in  case  of  such  antecedent  repeal !  ! 

Were  ever  a  body  of  men  so  abandoned  in  the  hour 
of  need  as  the  American  cabinet,  in  this  instance,  by 
Bonaparte  ?  Was  ever  any  body  of  men  so  cruelly 
wounded  in  the  house  of  their  friend  ?  This  —  this 
was  "  the  unkindest  cut  of  all."  But  how  was  it  re- 
ceived by  the  American  cabinet?  Surely,  they  were 
indignant  at  this  treatment.  Surely,  the  air  rings  with 
reproaches  upon  a  man  who  has  thus  made  them  stake 
their  reputation  upon  a  falsehood,  and  then  gives  little 
less  than  the  lie  direct  to  their  assertions.  No,  sir, 
nothing  of  all  this  is  heard  from  our  cabinet.  There  is 
a  philosophic  tameness  that  would  be  remarkable  if  it 
were  not  in  all  cases  affecting  Bonaparte  characteristic. 
All  the  executive  of  the  United  States  has  found  it  in 
his  heart  to  say  in  relation  to  this  last  decree  of  Bona- 
parte, which  contradicts  his  previous  allegations  and 
asseverations,  is  that  "  this  proceeding  is  rendered, 
by  the  time  and  manner  of  it,  liable  to  many  objec- 
tions"!! ! 

I  have  referred  to  this  subject  as  being,  connected 
with  future  conduct,  strikingly  illustrative  of  the  dispo- 
sition of  the  American  cabinet  to  carry  on  the  war,  and 
of  their  intention,  if  possible,  not  to  make  peace. 
Surely,  if  any  nation  had  a  claim  for  liberal  treatment 
from  another,  it  was  the  British  nation  from  the  Amer- 
ican, after  the  discovery  of  the  error  of  the  American 
government  in  relation  to  the  repeal  of  the  Berlin  and 


SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION    OF   CANADA.  389 

Milan  decrees  in  November,  1810.  In  consequence  of 
that  error,  the  American  cabinet  had  ruined  numbers 
of  our  own  citizens  who  had  been  caught  by  the  revival 
of  the  non-intercourse  law  :  they  had  revived  that  law 
against  Great  Britain  under  circumstances  which  now 
appeared  to  have  been  fallacious  ;  and  they  had  declared 
war  against  her  on  the  supposition  that  she  had  refused 
to  repeal  her  Orders  in  Council,  after  the  French 
decrees  were  in  fact  revoked  ;  whereas,  it  now  appears 
that  they  were  in  fact  not  revoked.  Surely  the  knowl- 
edge of  this  error  was  followed  by  an  instant  and  anxious 
desire  to  redress  the  resulting  injury.  As  the  British 
Orders  in  Council  were  in  fact  revoked,  on  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  existence  of  the  French  decree  of  repeal, 
surely  the  American  cabinet  at  once  extended  the  hand 
of  friendship,  met  the  British  government  half  way, 
stopped  all  further  irritation,  and  strove  to  place  every 
thing  on  a  basis  best  suited  to  promote  an  amicable 
adjustment.  No,  sir,  nothing  of  all  this  occurred.  On 
the  contrary,  the  question  of  impressments  is  made  the 
basis  of  continuing  the  war.  On  this  subject,  a  studied 
fairness  of  proposition  is  preserved,  accompanied  with 
systematic  perseverance  in  measures  of  hostility.  An 
armistice  was  proposed  by  them.  It  was  refused  by  us. 
It  was  acceded  to  by  the  American  general  on  the 
frontiers.  It  was  rejected  by  the  cabinet.  No  consid- 
eration of  the  false  allegation  on  which  the  war  in  fact 
was  founded,  no  consideration  of  the  critical  and  ex- 
tremely essential  nature  to  both  nations  of  the  sub- 
ject of  impressment,  no  considerations  of  humanity, 
interposed  their  influence.  They  renewed  hostilities. 
They  rushed  upon  Canada.  Nothing  would  satisfy  them 


390  SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA. 

but  blood.     The  language  of  their  conduct  is  that  of  the 
giant,  in  the  legends  of  infancy,  — 

Fee,  Faw,  Fum, 

I  smell  the  blood  of  an  Englishman, 

Dead  or  alive,  I  will  have  some. 

Can  such  men  pretend  that  peace  is  their  object  ? 
Whatever  may  result,  the  perfect  conviction  of  my  mind 
is  that  they  have  no  such  intention,  and  that,  if  it  come, 
it  is  contrary  both  to  their  hope  and  expectation. 

I  would  not  judge  these  men  severely.  But  it  is  my 
duty  to  endeavor  to  judge  them  truly,  and  to  express 
fearlessly  the  result  of  that  judgment,  whatever  it  may 
be.  My  opinion  results  from  the  application  of  the  well- 
known  principle  of  judging  concerning  men's  purposes 
and  motives,  — to  consider  rather  what  men  do  than  what 
they  say  ;  and  to  examine  their  deeds  in  connection  with 
predominating  passions  and  interests,  and  on  this  basis 
decide.  In  making  an  estimate  of  the  intentions  of 
these  or  any  other  politicians,  I  make  little  or  no  ac- 
count of  pacific  pretensions.  There  is  a  general  reluc- 
tance at  war  and  desire  of  peace  which  pervades  the 
great  mass  of  every  people  ;  and  artful  rulers  could 
never  keep  any  nation  at  -war,  any  length  of  time 
beyond  their  true  interests,  without  some  sacrifice  to 
that  general  love  of  peace  which  exists  in  civilized  men. 
Bonaparte  himself  will  tell  you  that  he  is  the  most  pa- 
cific creature  in  the  world.  He  has  already  declared,  by 
his  proclamation  to  Frenchmen,  that  he  has  gone  to 
Moscow  for  no  other  end  than  to  cultivate  peace  and 
counteract  the  Emperor  of  Russia's  desire  of  war.  In 
this  country,  where  the  popular  sentiment  has  so  strong 


SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA.          391 

an  impulse  on  its  affairs,  the  same  obtrusive  pretension 
must  inevitably  be  preserved.  No  man,  or  set  of  men, 
ever  can  or  will  get  this  country  at  war,  or  continue  it 
long  in  war,  without  keeping  on  hand  a  stout,  round 
stock  of  gulling  matter.  Fair  propositions  will  always  , 
be  made  to  go  hand  in  hand  with  offensive  acts.  And 
when  something  is  offered  so  reasonable  that  no  man 
can  doubt  but  it  will  be  accepted,  at  the  same  moment 
something  will  be  done  of  a  nature  to  embarrass  the 
project,  and  if  not  to  defeat  at  least  to  render  its  accept- 
ance dubious.  How  this  has  been  in  past  time  I  have 
shown.  I  will  now  illustrate  what  is  doing  and  intended 
at  present. 

As,  from  the  uniform  tenor  of  the  conduct  of  the 
American  cabinet  in  relation  to  the  British  government, 
I  have  no  belief  that  their  intention  has  been  to  make  a 
solid  arrangement  with  that  nation,  so,  from  the  evi- 
dence of  their  disposition  and  intention  existing  abroad 
and  on  the  table,  I  have  no  belief  that  such  is  at  present 
their  purpose.  I  cannot  possibly  think  otherwise  than 
that  such  is  not  their  intention.  Let  us  take  the  case 
into  common  life.  I  have  demands,  Mr.  Speaker, 
against  you,  very  just  in  their  nature,  but  different. 
Some  of  recent,  others  of  very  old,  date.  The  former 
depending  upon  principles  very  clearly  in  my  favor ; 
the  latter  critical,  difficult,  and  dubious,  both  in  prin- 
ciple and  settlement.  In  this  state  of  things,  and  dur- 
ing your  absence,  I  watch  my  opportunity,  declare 
enmity  ;  throw  myself  upon  your  children  and  servants 
and  property  which  happen  to  be  in  my  neighborhood, 
and  do  them  all  the  injury  I  can.  While  I  am  doing 
this,  I  receive  a  messenger  from  you,  stating  that  the 


392          SPEECH  ON   THE  INVASION  OF   CANADA. 

grounds  of  the  recent  injury  are  settled,  that  you  com- 
ply fully  with  my  terms.  Your  servants  and  children, 
whom  I  am  plundering  and  killing,  invite  me  to  stay 
my  hand  until  you  return,  or  until  some  accommodation 
can  take  place  between  us.  But,  deaf  to  any  such 
suggestions,  I  prosecute  my  intention  of  injury  to  the 
utmost.  When  there  is  reason  to  expect  your  return,  I 
multiply  my  means  of  injury  and  offence.  And  no 
sooner  do  I  hear  of  your  arrival  than  I  thrust  my  fist 
into  j'our  face,  and  say  to  you,  "  Well,  sir,  here  are  fair 
propositions  of  settlement.  Come  to  my  terms,  which 
are  very  just.  Settle  the  old  demand  in  my  way,  and 
we  will  be  as  good  friends  as  ever."  Mr.  Speaker,  what 
would  be  your  conduct  on  such  an  occasion  ?  Would 
you  be  apt  to  look  as  much  at  the  nature  of  the  propo- 
sitions as  at  the  temper  of  the  assailant  ?  If  you  did  not 
at  once  return  blow  for  blow  and  injury  for  injury,  Avould 
you  not  at  least  take  a  little  time  to  consider  ?  Would 
you  not  tell  such  an  assailant  that  you  were  not  to  be 
bullied  nor  beaten  into  any  concession  ?  If  you  settled 
at  all,  might  you  not  consider  it  your  duty  in  some  way 
to  make  him  feel  the  consequences  of  his  strange  intem- 
perance of  passion  ?  For  myself,  I  have  no  question  how 
a  man  of  spirit  ought  to  act  under  such  circumstances. 
I  have  as  little,  how  a  great  nation,  like  Great  Britain, 
will  act.  Now,  I  have  no  doubt,  sir,  that  the  American 
cabinet  view  this  subject  in  the  same  light.  They  un- 
derstand well  that  —  by  the  declaration  of  war,  the 
invasion  of  Canada,  the  refusal  of  an  armistice,  and  per- 
severance in  hostilities,  after  the  principal  ground  of 
war  had  been  removed  —  they  have  wrought  the  minds 
of  the  British  cabinet  and  people  to  a  very  high  state  of 


SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION  OF  CANADA.          393 

irritation.  Now  is  the  very  moment  to  get  up  some 
grand  scheme  of  pacification,  such  as  may  persuade  the 
American  people  of  the  inveterate  love  of  our  cabinet 
for  peace,  and  make  them  acquiescent  in  their  perse- 
verance in  hostilities.  Accordingly,  before  the  end  of 
the  session,  a  great  tub  will  be  thrown  out  to  the  whale. 
Probably,  a  little  while  before  the  spring  elections,  terms 
of  very  fair  import  will  be  proffered  to  Great  Britain : 
such  as,  perhaps,  six  months  ago,  our  cabinet  would  not 
have  granted,  had  she  solicited  them  on  her  knees ;  such 
as,  probably,  in  the  opinion  of  the  people  of  this  country, 
Great  Britain  ought  to  accept ;  such,  perhaps,  as,  in  any 
other  state  of  things,  she  would  have  accepted:  but 
such,  as  I  fear,  under  the  irritation  produced  by  the 
strange  course  pursued  by  the  American  cabinet,  that 
nation  will  not  accept.  Sir,  I  do  not  believe  that  our 
cabinet  expect  that  they  will  be  accepted.  They  think 
the  present  state  of  induced  passion  is  sufficient  to  pre- 
vent arrangement.  But,  to  make  assurance  doubly 
sure,  to  take  a  bond  of  fate  that  arrangement  shall  not 
happen,  they  prepare  this  bill,  —  a  bill  which  proposes 
an  augmentation  of  the  army  for  the  express  purpose  of 
conquering  the  Canadas,  —  a  bill  which  —  connected 
with  the  recent  disposition  evinced  by  our  cabinet  in 
relation  to  those  provinces,  and  with  the  avowed  intent 
of  making  their  subjugation  the  means  of  peace  through 
the  fear  to  be  inspired  into  Great  Britain  —  is  as  offen- 
sive to  the  pride  of  that  nation  as  can  well  be  imagined ; 
and  is,  in  my  apprehension,  as  sure  a  guarantee  of  con- 
tinued war  as  could  be  given.  On  these  grounds,  my 
mind  cannot  force  itself  to  any  other  conclusion  than 
this,  that  the  avowed  object  of  this  bill  is  the  true  one  ; 


394  SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA. 

that  the  Canadas  are  to  be  invaded  the  next  season ; 
that  the  war  is  to  be  protracted ;  and  that  this  is  the 
real  policy  of  the  American  cabinet. 

I  will  now  reply  to  those  invitations  to  "  union " 
which  have  been  so  obtrusively  urged  upon  us.  If  by 
this  call  to  union  is  meant  an  union  in  a  project  for  the 
invasion  of  Canada,  or  for  the  invasion  of  East  Florida, 
or  for  the  conquest  of  any  foreign  country  whatever, 
either  as  a  means  of  carrying  on  this  war  or  for  any 
other  purpose,  I  answer  distinctly,  I  will  unite  with  no 
man,  nor  any  body  of  men,  for  any  such  purposes.  I 
think  such  projects  criminal  in  the  highest  degree  and 
ruinous  to  the  prosperity  of  these  States.  But  if  by 
this  invitation  is  meant  union  in  preparation  for  defence, 
strictly  so  called ;  union  in  fortifying  our  sea-board ; 
union  in  putting  our  cities  into  a  state  of  safety ;  union 
in  raising  such  a  military  force  as  shall  be  sufficient, 
with  the  local  militia  in  the  hands  of  the  constitutional 
leaders,  the  executives  of  the  States,  to  give  a  rational 
degree  of  security  against  any  invasion,  sufficient  to 
defend  our  frontiers,  sufficient  to  awe  into  silence  the 
Indian  tribes  within  our  territories ;  union  in  creating 
such  a  maritime  force  as  shall  command  the  seas  on  the 
American  coasts,  and  keep  open  the  intercourse  at  least 
between  the  States,  —  if  this  is  meant  I  have  no  hesita- 
tion ;  union  on  such  principles  you  shall  have  from  me 
cordially  and  faithfully  ;  and  this,  too,  sir,  without  any 
reference  to  the  state  of  my  opinion  in  relation  to  the 
justice  or  the  necessity  of  this  war ;  because  I  well 
understand  such  to  be  the  condition  of  man  in  a  social 
compact  that  he  must  partake  of  the  fate  of  the  society 
to  which  he  belongs,  and  must  submit  to  the  privations 


SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION  OF  CANADA.          395 

and  sacrifices  its  defence  requires,  notwithstanding  these 
may  be  the  result  of  the  vices  or  crimes  of  its  immediate 
rulers.     But  there  is  a  great  difference  between  support- 
ing such  rulers  in  plans  of  necessary  self-defence,  on 
which  the  safety  of  our  altars  and  firesides  essentially 
depends,  and  supporting  them  in  projects  of   foreign 
invasion,  and  encouraging  them  in  schemes  of  conquest 
and  ambition  which  are  not  only  unjust  in  themselves, 
but  dreadful  in  their  consequences  ;  inasmuch  as,  let  the 
particular  project  result  as  it  may,  the  general  effect 
must  be,  according  to  human  view,  destructive  to  our 
own  domestic  liberties  and  Constitution.     I  speak  as  an 
individual,  sir,  for  my  single  self;  did  I  support  such 
projects  as  are  avowed  to  be  the  objects  of  this  bill,  I 
should  deem  myself  a  traitor  to  my  country.     Were  I 
even  to  aid  them  by  loan  or  in  any  other  way,  I  should 
consider  myself  a  partaker  in  the  guilt  of  the  purpose. 
But  when  these  projects  of  invasion  shall  be  abandoned  ; 
when  men  yield  up  schemes,  which  not  only  openly  con- 
template the  raising  of  a  great  military  force,  but  also 
the  concentrating  them  at  one  point  and  placing  them 
in  one  hand  ;  schemes  obviously  ruinous  to  the  fates  of 
a  free  republic,  as  they  comprehend  the  means  by  which 
such  have  ever  heretofore  been  destroyed,  —  when,  I  say, 
such  schemes  shall  be  abandoned,  and  the  wishes  of  the 
cabinet  limited  to  mere  defence,  and  frontier  and  mari- 
time protection,  there  will  be  no  need  of  calls  to  union. 
For  such  objects  there  is  not,  there  cannot  be,  but  one 
heart  and  soul  in  this  people. 

I  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  while  I  utter  these  things 
a  thousand  tongues  and  a  thousand  pens  are  preparing 
without  doors  to  overwhelm  me,  if  possible,  by  their 


396          SPEECH   ON   THE  INVASION   OF  CANADA. 

pestiferous  gall.  Already  I  hear  in  the  air  the  sound 
of  "  traitor,"  "  British  agent,"  "  British  gold,"  and  all 
those  changes  of  vulgar  calumny  by  which  the  imagina- 
tions of  the  mass  of  men  are  affected,  and  by  which 
they  are  prevented  from  listening  to  what  is  true  and 
receiving  what  is  reasonable. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  well  becomes  any  man  standing  in  the 
presence  of  such  a  nation  as  this  to  speak  of  himself 
seldom  ;  and  such  a  man  as  I  am  it  becomes  to  speak  of 
himself  not  at  all,  except,  indeed,  when  the  relations  in 
which  he  stands  to  his  country  are  little  known,  and 
when  the  assertion  of  those  relations  has  some  connec- 
tion and  may  have  some  influence  on  interests  which  it 
is  peculiarly  incumbent  upon  him  to  support. 

Under  this  sanction,  I  say,  it  is  riot  for  a  man  whose 
ancestors  have  been  planted  in  this  country  now  for 
almost  two  centuries ;  it  is  not  for  a  man  who  has  a 
family,  and  friends,  and  character,  and  children,  and  a 
deep  stake  in  the  soil ;  it  is  not  for  a  man  who  is  self- 
conscious  of  being  rooted  in  that  soil,  as  deeply  and  as 
exclusively  as  the  oak  which  shoots  among  its  rocks  :  it 
is  not  for  such  a  man  to  hesitate  or  swerve  a  hair's 
breadth  from  his  country's  purpose  and  true  interests, 
because  of  the  yelpings,  the  bowlings,  and  snaiiings  of 
that  hungry  pack  which  corrupt  men  keep  directly  or 
indirectly  in  pay,  with  the  view  of  hunting  down  every 
man  who  dare  develop  their  purposes,  —  a  pack  com- 
posed, it  is  true,  of  some  native  curs,  but  for  the  most 
part  of  hounds  and  spaniels  of  very  recent  importation, 
whose  backs  are  seared  by  the  lash,  and  whose  necks 
are  sore  with  the  collars  of  their  former  masters.  In 
fulfilling  his  duty,  the  lover  of  his  country  raust  often 


SPEECH   OK  THE   INVASION  OF   CANADA.          397 

be  obliged  to  breast  the  shock  of  calumny.  If  called  to 
that  service,  he  will  meet  the  exigency  with  the  same 
firmness  as,  should  another  occasion  call,  he  would 
breast  the  shock  of  battle.  No,  sir,  I  am  not  to  be 
deterred  by  such  apprehensions.  May  heaven  so  deal 
with  me  and  mine,  as  I  am  true  or  faithless  to  the  best 
interests  of  this  people  !  May  it  deal  with  me  accord- 
ing to  its  just  judgments  when  I  fail  to  bring  men  and 
1  measures  to  the  bar  of  public  opinion,  and  to  expose 
projects  and  systems  of  policy  which  I  know  to  be 
ruinous  to  the  peace,  prosperity,  and  liberties  of  my 
country  ! 

This  leads  me  naturally  to  the  third  and  last  point  of 
view  at  which  I  proposed  to  consider  this  bill,  —  as  a 
means  for  the  advancement  of  the  objects  of  the  per- 
sonal or  local  ambition  of  the  members  of  the  American 
cabinet.  With  respect  to  the  members  of  that  cabinet, 
I  may  almost  literally  say  I  know  nothing  of  them 
except  as  public  men.  Against  them  I  have  no  per- 
sonal animosity.  I  know  little  of  them  ill  private  life, 
and  that  little  never  made  me  ambitious  to  know  more. 
I  look  at  them  as  public  men,  wielding  powers  and  put- 
ting in  operation  means  and  instruments  materially 
affecting  the  interests  and  prospects  of  the  United 
States. 

It  is  a  curious  fact,  but  no  less  true  than  curious,  that 
for  these  twelve  years  past  the  whole  affairs  of  this 
country  have  been  managed,  and  its  fortunes  reversed, 
under  the  influence  of  a  cabinet  little  less  than  despotic, 
composed,  to  all  efficient  purposes,  of  two  Virginians 
and  a  foreigner.  When  I  speak  of  these  men  as  Vir- 
ginians, I  mean  to  cast  no  odium  upon  that  State,  as 


398  SPEECH   ON    THE    INVASION    OF    CANADA. 

though  it  were  not  entitled  to  its  full  share  of  influence 
in  the  national  councils  ;  nor,  when  I  referred  to  one  of 
them  as  being  a  foreigner,  do  I  intend  thereby  to  sug- 
gest any  connections  of  a  nature  unworthy  or  suspicious. 
I  refer  to  these  circumstances  as  general  and  undoubted 
facts  which  belong  to  the  characters  of  the  cabinet,  and 
which  cannot  fail  to  be  taken  into  view  in  all  estimates 
of  plans  and  projects,  so  long  as  man  is  constituted  as 
he  is,  and  so  long  as  the  prejudices  and  principles  of 
childhood  never  fail  to  influence  in  different  degrees  in 
even  the  best  men  the  course  of  thinking  and  action  of 
their  riper  years. 

I  might  have  said,  perhaps,  with  more  strict  pro- 
priety, that  it  was  a  cabinet  composed  of  three  Virgin- 
ians and  a  foreigner,1  because  once  in  the  course  of  the 
twelve  years  there  has  been  a  change  of  one  of  the 
characters.  But,  sir,  that  change  was  notoriously  mat- 
ter of  form  rather  than  substance.  As  it  respects  the 
cabinet,  the  principles  continued  the  same  ;  the  interests 
the  same  ;  the  objects  at  which  it  aimed  the  same. 

I  said  that  this  cabinet  had  been,  during  these  twelve 
years,  little  less  than  despotic.  This  fact  also  is  noto- 
rious. During  this  whole  period  the  measures  distinctly 
recommended  have  been  adopted  by  the  two  Houses  of 
Congress  with  as  much  uniformity  and  with  as  little 
modification,  too,  as  the  measures  of  the  British  ministry 
have  been  adopted  during  the  same  period  by  the  British 
Parliament.  The  connection  between  cabinet  councils 
and  parliamentary  acts  is  just  as  intimate  in  the  one 
country  as  in  the  other. 

1  Mr.  Jefferson,  Mr.  Madison,  Mr.  Monroe,  and  Mr.  Gallatin. 


SPEECH   ON    THE    INVASION    OF   CANADA.  399 

I  said  that  these  three  men  constituted,  to  all  efficient 
purposes,  the  whole  cabinet.  This  also  is  notorious. 
It  is  true  that  during  this  period  other  individuals  have 
been  called  into  the  cabinet.  But  they  were  all  of  them 
comparatively  minor  men,  such  as  had  no  great  weight 
either  of  personal  talents  or  of  personal  influence  to 
support  them.  They  were  kept  as  instruments  of  the 
master  spirits;  and  when  they  failed  to  answer  the 
purpose,  or  became  restive,  they  were  sacrificed  or  pro- 
vided for.  The  shades  were  made  to  play  upon  the 
curtain ;  they  entered ;  they  bowed  to  the  audience ; 
they  did  what  they  were  bidden ;  they  said  what  was 
set  down  for  them.  When  those  who  pulled  the  wires 
saw  fit,  they  passed  away.  No  man  knew  why  they 
entered ;  no  man  knew  why  they  departed ;  no  man 
could  tell  whence  they  came ;  no  man  asked  whither 
they  were  gone. 

From  this  uniform  composition  of  the  cabinet  it  is 
obvious  that  the  project  of  the  master  spirits  was  that 
of  essential  influence  within  the  cabinet ;  for  in  such  a 
country  as  ours,  so  extended,  and  its  interests  so  compli- 
cated, it  is  impossible  but  those  who  would  conduct  its 
affairs  wisely  and  with  a  single  eye  to  the  public  good 
should  strive  to  call  around  themselves  the  highest  and 
most  independent  talents  in  the  nation,  at  least  of  their 
own  political  friends.  When  this  is  not  the  case,  it 
must  be  apparent  that  the  leading  influences  want  not 
associates  but  instruments.  The  same  principle  applies 
to  the  distribution  of  office  out  of  the  cabinet  as  to 
filling  places  within  it.  Some  mistakes  may  be  expected 
to  happen  in  selections  among  candidates  for  appoint- 
ments at  a  distance ;  but  if  at  any  time  a  cabinet  shall 


400  SPEECH   ON   THE  INVASION  OF   CANADA. 

be  systematically  guided  in  such  selection  by  a  regard, 
not  to  merit  or  qualifications,  but  to  electioneering  ser- 
vices ;  if  the  obvious  design  be  to  reward  partisans,  and 
encourage  defection  to  its  party  standard,  then  the 
people  may  rest  assured  that  the  project  such  cabinet 
has  in  view  is  not  to  serve  the  public  interest,  but  to 
secure  their  personal  influence,  and  that  they  want  not 
competency  for  the  employment  but  subserviency  in  it. 
How  this  matter  is  I  shall  not  assert,  not  because  I  have 
not  very  distinct  opinions  upon  the  subject,  but  because 
the  sphere  of  appointment  is  too  extensive  to  be  com- 
prehended in  the  grasp  of  a  single  individual ;  and  I 
mean  to  make  no  assertion  concerning  motive  or  con- 
duct of  which  there  does  not  exist  in  my  mind  evidence 
as  well  complete  as  conclusive.  I  refer  to  this  subject, 
therefore,  only  as  a  collateral  and  corroborative  proof  of 
the  purposes  of  the  cabinet.  Every  man  can  decide  for 
himself  in  his  own  circle  or  neighborhood  concerning 
the  apparent  principle  upon  which  the  cabinet  have 
proceeded  in  making  appointments,  remembering  al- 
ways that  the  section  of  country  against  whose  pros- 
perity the  policy  of  the  cabinet  is  most  systematically 
levelled  will  be  that  in  which  subserviency  to  all  its 
purposes  will  be  most  studiously  inculcated  among  its 
adherents.  It  will  be  in  that  quarter  that  the  flames  of 
party  animosity  will  be  enkindled  with  the  most  sedu- 
lous assiduity,  as  the  means  of  making  men  forgetful  of 
their  true  interests,  and  obedient  to  their  employers,  in 
spite  of  their  natural  prejudices  and  inclinations. 

It  is  natural  to  inquire  what  are  the  projects  con- 
nected with  the  cabinet  thus  composed,  and  to  what 
ends  it  is  advancing.  To  answer  this  question  it  is 


SPEECH   ON  THE  INVASION   OF   CANADA.  401 

necessary  to  look  into  the  nature  and  relations  of  things. 
Here  the  true  criterions  of  judgment  are  to  be  found. 
Professions  are  always  plausible.  Why,  sir,  Bonaparte 
himself  is  the  very  milk  of  human  kindness ;  he  is  the 
greatest  lover  of  his  species  in  the  world  ;  he  would  not 
hurt  a  sparrow  if  you  take  his  own  account  of  the 
matter.  What,  then,  do  nature  and  the  relations  of 
things  teach  ?  They  teach  this,  that  the  great  hazard 
in  a  government  where  the  chief  magistracy  is  elective 
is  from  the  local  ambition  of  States  and  the  personal 
ambition  of  individuals.  It  is  no  reflection  upon  any 
State  to  say  that  it  is  ambitious.  According  to  their 
opportunities  and  temptations  all  States  are  ambitious. 
This  quality  is  as  much  predicable  of  States  as  of  in- 
dividuals. Indeed,  State  ambition  has  its  root  in  the 
same  passions  of  human  nature,  and  derives  its  strength 
from  the  same  nutriment  as  personal  ambition.  All 
history  shows  that  such  passions  always  exist  among 
States  combined  in  confederacies.  To  deny  it  is  to 
deceive  ourselves.  It  has  existed,  it  does  exist,  and 
always  must  exist.  In  our  political  relations,  as  in  our 
personal,  we  then  walk  most  safely  when  we  walk  with 
reference  to  the  actual  existence  of  things,  admit  the 
weaknesses,  and  do  not  hide  from  ourselves  the  dangers, 
to  which  our  nature  is  exposed.  Whatever  is  true  let 
us  confess.  Nations,  as  well  as  individuals,  are  only 
safe  in  proportion  as  they  attain  self-knowledge,  and 
regulate  their  conduct  by  it. 

What  fact  upon  this  point  does  our  own  experience 
present  ?  It  presents  this  striking  one,  —  that,  taking 
the  years  for  which  the  presidential  chair  is  already 
filled  into  the  account,  out  of  twenty-eight  years  since 

26 


402  SPEECH    ON   THE   INVASION    OF    CANADA. 

our  Constitution  was  established,  the  single  State  of 
Virginia  has  furnished  the  President  for  twenty-four 
years.  And,  farther,  it  is  now  as  distinctly  known  and 
familiarly  talked  about  in  this  city  and  vicinity  who  is 
the  destined  successor  of  the  present  President  after  the 
expiration  of  his  ensuing  term,  and  known  that  he,  too, 
is  to  be  a  Virginian,  as  it  was  known  and  familiarly 
talked  about  during  the  presidency  of  Mr.  Jefferson, 
that  the  present  President  was  to  be  his  successor. 
And  the  former  was,  and  the  latter  is,  a  subject  of  as 
much  notoriety,  and,  to  human  appearance,  of  as  much 
certainty  too,  as  who  will  be  the  successor  to  the  Brit- 
ish crown  is  a  matter  of  notoriety  in  that  country.  To 
secure  this  succession  and  keep  it  in  the  destined  line 
has  been,  is,  and  will  continue  to  be,  the  main  object  of 
the  policy  of  these  men.  This  is  the  point  on  which 
the  projects  of  the  cabinet  for  the  three  years  past  have 
been  brought  to  bear,  that  James  the  First  should  be 
made  to  continue  four  years  longer.  And  this  is  the 
point  on  which  the  projects  of  the  cabinet  will  be 
brought  to  bear  for  the  three  years  to  come,  that  James 
the  Second  shall  be  made  to  succeed,  according  to  the 
fundamental  rescripts  of  the  Monticellian  dynasty. 

[Mr.  Quin cy  was  here  again  called  to  order.  The 
Speaker  said  that  really  the  gentleman  laid  his  premises 
so  remote  from  his  conclusions  that  he  could  not  see 
how  his  observations  applied  to  the  bill.] 

MR.  QUINCY  proceeded:  On  the  contrary,  sir,  I  main- 
tain that  both  my  premises  and  conclusions  are  very 
proximate  to  each  other,  and  intimately  connected  with 
the  bill  on  the  table,  and  with  the  welfare  of  this  peo- 
ple. 


SPEECH    ON   THE    INVASION   OF   CANADA.          403 

Is  it  not  within  the  scope  of  just  debate  to  show  that 
the  general  policy  of  the  cabinet,  and  that  also  this  par- 
ticular project,  have  for  their  object  the  aggrandizement 
of  the  cabinet  themselves,  or  some  member  of  it?  If 
this  be  the  object  of  the  bill,  is  it  not  proper  to  be 
exhibited  ?  The  topic  may  be  of  a  nature  high  and 
critical,  but  no  man  can  deny  that  it  is  both  important 
and  relevant.  To  secure  the  power  they  at  present 
possess,  to  perpetuate  it  in  their  own  hands,  and  to 
transfer  it  to  their  selected  favorites,  is  the  great  project 
of  the  policy  of  the  members  of  our  cabinet.  It  would 
be  easy  to  trace  to  this  master  passion  the  declaration  of 
war  at  the  time  and  under  the  circumstances  in  which 
it  occurred.  Antecedent  to  the  declaration  of  war,  it  was 
distinctly  stated  by  individuals  from  that  quarter  of  the 
country  under  the  influences  of  which  this  war  was 
adopted,  that  the  support  of  the  present  President  of 
the  United  States,  by  their  quarter  of  the  country, 
depended  upon  the  fact  of  the  cabinet's  coming  up  to 
the  point  of  war  with  Great  Britain.  This  state  of 
things,  and  the  knowledge  of  it  by  the  members  of  the 
cabinet,  was  repeatedly  urged  in  conversation  by  mem- 
bers of  this  and  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature  to 
shake  the  incredulity  in  a  declaration  of  war  which  at 
that  time  existed  in  some  of  our  minds.  Without  placing 
any  reliance  on  the  reports  of  that  day,  this  I  assert, 
unequivocally  and  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that 
such  were  the  passions  which  existed  in  the  Southern 
and  Western  States,  and  such  the  avowed  determination 
to  war,  that,  had  not  the  cabinet  come  up  to  that  point, 
its  influence  in  those  quarters  was  at  an  end.  Without 
their  support,  the  re-election  of  the  present  Chief  Magis- 


404  SPEECH   ON    THE    INVASION   OF    CANADA. 

trate  was  hopeless.  Now,  sir,  when  continuance  of 
power  is  put  into  the  scale,  as  in  this  instance  it  was 
unquestionably,  it  is  not  for  human  nature  to  deny  that 
it  had  not  a  material  influence  in  determining  the 
balance.  For  myself,  I  have  never  had  but  one  opinion 
on  this  matter,  —  I  have  never  doubted  that  we  should 
not  have  had  war  declared  at  the  last  session  if  the 
presidential  election  had  not  been  depending. 

Just  so  with  respect  to  the  invasion  of  Canada.  It 
was,  in  my  judgment,  a  test  required  by  the  state  of 
opinion  in  the  Southern  and  Western  States  of  the 
sincerity  of  the  cabinet,  and  of  its  heartiness  in  the 
prosecution  of  this  war.  This  accounts  for  the  strange 
and  headlong  haste,  and  the  want  of  sufficient  prepara- 
tion, with  which  the  invasion  was  expedited.  This 
accounts  for  the  neglect  to  meet  the  proposition  for  an 
armistice  when  made  by  the  Governor  of  Canada,  after 
a  knowledge  of  the  revocation  of  the  Orders  in  Council. 
This  accounts  for  the  obtrusive  attempts  to  gain  a  foot- 
ing in  Canada,  and  the  obstinate  perseverance  in  the 
show  of  invasion  until  the  members  of  the  electoral 
colleges  had  been  definitively  selected.  Since  which 
event  our  armies  have  been  quiet  enough.  When  I  see  a 
direct  dependence  between  the  perpetuation  of  power  in 
any  hand,  and  the  adoption  of,  and  the  perseverance  in, 
any  particular  course  of  measures.  I  cannot  refrain  from 
believing  that  such  a  course  has  been  suggested  and 
regulated  by  so  obvious  and  weighty  an  interest.  This 
subject  is  capable  of  much  greater  elucidation.  But 
according  to  }rour  suggestion,  sir,  I  shall  confine  myself 
to  trace  the  connection  of  this  master  passion  of  the 
cabinet  with  the  bill  now  under  consideration. 


SPEECH    ON   THE   INVASION   OF    CANADA.  405 

The  projects  of  the  cabinet  for  the  present  year  are 
loans,  to  the  amount,  at  least,  of  twenty  millions ;  an 
army  of  fifty-five  thousand  men;   a   grand  scheme  of 
pacification,  founded  on  some  legislative  acts  or  resolves ; 
and  a  perpetuation  of  the  war.     The  loans  are  expected 
to  be  filled  partly  from  the  popularity  derived  in  the 
commercial  cities  by  the  vote  for  building  seventy-fours, 
partly  by  opening  offices  for  receiving  subscriptions  in 
the  interior.     Whatever  is  received  will  be  diverted  to 
the  army  service.     The  grand  scheme  of   pacification 
will  be  made  to  appear  very  fair  in  terms ;  but  in  the 
state  of  irritation  which  has  been  produced  in  Great 
Britain  by  the  continuance  of  the  war  after  the  repeal 
'  of  the  Orders  in  Council,  and  by  the  pertinacious  per- 
severance  in   the    threats   and   preparation  to    invade 
Canada,  it  will,  it  is  expected,  be  rejected  by  her.     This, 
it  is  supposed,  will  give  popularity  to  the  war  in   this 
country.     The  forty  dollars  bounty  will,  it  is  hoped,  fill 
the  ranks.     The  army  for  the  conquest  of  Canada  will 
be  raised  :    to  be  commanded  by   whom  ?    this  is   the 
critical  question.     The  answer  is  in  every  man's  mouth. 
By  a  member  of  the  American  cabinet ;  by  one  of  the 
three ;    by  one   of   that  "  trio  *'    who   at  this   moment 
constitute  in  fact,  and  who  efficiently  have  always  con- 
stituted, the  whole  cabinet.     And  the  man  who  is  thus 
ntended  for  the  command  of  the  greatest  army  this  new 
world  ever  contained,  an  army  nearly  twice  as  great  as 
was  at  any  time  the  regular  army  of  our  Revolution,  I 
say  the  man  who  is  intended  for  this  great  trust  is  the 
individual  who  is  notoriously  the  selected  candidate  for 
the  next  presidency  ! 

Mr.  Speaker,  when  I  assert  that  the  present  Secretary 


406  SPEECH   ON   THE    INVASION   OF    CANADA. 

of  State,  who  is  now  the  acting  Secretary  of  War,  is 
destined,  by  a  cabinet  of  which  he  himself  constitutes 
one-third,  for  the  command  of  this  army,  I  know  that 
I  assert  intentions  to  exist  which  have  not  yet  developed 
themselves  by  an  official  avowal.  The  truth  is,  the  mo- 
ment for  an  official  avowal  has  not  yet  come.  The 
cabinet  must  work  along  by  degrees,  and  only  show 
their  cards  as  they  play  them.  The  army  must  first  be 
authorized.  The  bill  for  the  new  majors-general  must 
be  passed.  Then,  upon  their  plan,  it  will  be  found 
necessary  to  constitute  a  lieutenant-general.  "  And 
who  so  proper,"  the  cabinet  will  exclaim,  "  as  one  of 
ourselves  ?  "  "  And  who  so  proper  as  one  of  the  cab- 
inet ?  "  all  its  retainers  will  respond,  from  one  end  of 
the  continent  to  the  other.  I  would  willingly  have 
postponed  any  animadversion  upon  this  intention  of  the 
cabinet  until  it  should  have  been  avowed.  But  then  it 
would  have  been  too  late.  Then  the  fifty-five  thousand 
men  would  have  been  authorized,  and  the  necessity  for 
a  lieutenant-general  inevitable.  Sir,  I  know  very  well 
that  this  public  animadversion  may  possibly  stagger  the 
cabinet  in  its  purpose.  They  may  not  like  to  proceed 
in  the  design  after  the  public  eye  has  been  directed 
distinctly  upon  it.  And  the  existence  of  it  will  be 
denied,  and  its  partisans  will  assert  that  this  suggestion 
was  mere  surmise.  Be  it  so.  It  is,  comparatively,  of 
little  importance  what  happens  to  my  person  or  char- 
acter, provided  this  great  evil  can  be  averted  from  my 
country.  I  consider  the  raising  such  an  army  as  this, 
and  the  putting  it  under  the  command  of  that  individual, 
taking  into  view  his  connection  with  the  present  cabinet, 
so  ominous  to  the  liberties  of  this  country  that  I  am  not 


SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA.  407 

anxious  what  happens  to  me,  if,  by  any  constitutional 
responsibility,  I  can  prevent  it. 

However,  to  the  end  that  it  may  not  be  thought  I 
have  made  this  assertion  lightly,  I  will  briefly  state  the 
evidence  upon  which  it  is  founded,  and  which  to  my 
mind  has  given  perfect  conviction  as  to  the  intentions 
of  the  cabinet. 

First.  As  long  ago  as  last  June,  it  was,  to  my  knowl- 
edge, asserted  by  individuals  connected  with  the  admin- 
istration, in  this  and  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature, 
that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  American  cabinet  to 
place  the  Secretary  of  State  at  the  head  of  the  army. 

Second.  This  intention  was,  early  in  the  present  ses- 
sion, distinctly  avowed  by  members  in  this  and  the  other 
branch  of  the  legislature,  to  be  the  intention  of  the 
cabinet.  And  these  members  were  persons  intimate 
with  the  cabinet,  and  connected  with  them  in  politics  ; 
and,  of  all  men,  the  most  likely  to  know  their  intentions. 
This  can  be  proved,  if  denied.  But  it  will  not  be.  I 
do  not  believe  there  is  a  man  on  this  floor  who  is  not 
acquainted  with  the  fact  as  well  as  myself. 

Third.  As  soon  as  the  session  opened,  the  old  Secre- 
tary at  War  was  hunted  down. 

Fourth.  The  burden  of  the  whole  department  of  war 
is  now  transferred  to  the  shoulders  of  the  Secretary  of 
State.  This  great  and  oppressive  trust  which,  at  the 
last  session,  it  was  seriously  urged  no  single  living  wight 
could  bear,  but  that  it  required  three  persons  to  support 
its  pressure,  is  now  cast  solely  upon  this  individual, 
who,  it  seems,  is  able  to  uphold  the  mighty  mountain 
of  that  department  in  one  hand,  while  he  balances  the 
department  of  state  in  the  other. 


408          SPEECH    ON    THE    INVASION   OF    CANADA. 

Fifth.  The  Secretary  of  State  has  not  merely  entered 
into  a  still-life  possession  of  the  department  of  war. 
He  is  actively  employed  in  arranging  its  details,  and 
putting  it  into  a  state  of  preparation.  This  work  of 
drudgery  it  can  hardly  be  expected  that  any  man  would 
undertake,  for  the  sake  of  an  unknown  successor,  unless 
he  had  himself  some  prospect  of  interest  in  it. 

Sixth.  The  Secretary  of  State  is  no  sooner  in  posses- 
sion of  the  department  of  war,  than  the  plan  of  a  great 
army,  an  efficient  pecuniary  bounty,  and  a  brilliant 
campaign  against  Canada,  is  promulgated :  of  all  which 
he  is  the  known  author ;  having  communicated  to  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs  the  whole  project,  not 
only  in  general,  but  in  its  details.  Above  all,  that  no 
doubt  concerning  the  ultimate  purpose  may  exist, — 

Seventh.  Immediately  after  the  Secretary  of  State 
enters  upon  the  duties  of  Secretary  at  War,  he  puts  to 
Adjutant-General  Gushing  this  question :  "  How  many 
majors-general  and  brigadiers  are  necessary  for  an 
army  of  thirty-five  thousand  men  ? "  Now,  as  this 
question  was  put  by  authority,  and  was  intended  to  be 
communicated  to  Congress,  and  was  in  its  nature 
very  simple,  one  would  have  supposed  that  it  would 
have  been  enough,  in  all  conscience,  to  have  given  to 
it  a  direct  answer.  Besides,  it  is  not  always  thought 
proper,  for  those  who  are  in  the  under  grades  of 
departments,  when  one  question  is  proposed,  to  enter 
into  the  discussion  of  another.  However,  notwith- 
standing these  obvious  suggestions,  one-half  of  the 
whole  reply  of  General  Gushing  is  taken  up  in  inves- 
tigating, not  the  question  which  was  asked,  but  the 
question  on  which  the  honest  adjutant,  in  the  sim- 


SPEECH   ON   THE  INVASION  OF  CANADA.          409 

plicity  of  his  soul,  tells  •  the  Secretary,  "  You  have  not 
required  my  opinion."  The  whole  of  this  part  of  the 
letter  runs  thus :  — 

"  In  this  country  we  have  never  had  a  grade  between 
the  commander-in-chief  and  that  of  major-general ;  hence 
it  was  found  necessary,  in  the  '  continental  army,'  to  give 
to  the  senior  major-general  the  command  of  the  right 
wing,  and  to  the  next  in  rank  that  of  the  left ;  which, 
from  the  limited  number  of  general  officers,  often  left 
a  division  to  a  brigadier,  a  brigade  to  a  colonel,  and  a 
regiment  to  a  subordinate  field  officer;  but  in  Europe 
this  difficulty  is  obviated  by  the  appointment  of  general 
officers  of  higher  grades. 

"  From  the  best  information  I  have  been  able  to  obtain 
on  this  subject,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  eight 
majors-general  and  sixteen  brigadiers  to  command  the 
divisions  and  brigades  of  an  army  of  thirty-five  thousand 
men  is  the  lowest  estimate  which  the  uniform  practice 
of  France,  Russia,  and  England,  will  warrant ;  and  that 
this  is  much  below  the  proportion  of  officers  of  these 
grades  actually  employed  in  the  army  of  the  Revolution. 

"  As  you  have  not  required  my  opinion,  whether  it  be 
necessary  to  have  a  higher  grade  than  that  of  major- 
general,  I  have  not  deemed  it  proper  to  touch  this  sub- 
ject, and  have  confined  myself  to  the  number  of  majors- 
general  and  brigadiers  deemed  necessary  to  command 
the  divisions  and  brigades  of  an  army  of  thirty-five 
thousand  men.  It  may  not,  however,  be  improper  to 
remark  that,  if  it  is  intended  to  have  no  higher  grade 
than  that  of  major-general,  their  number  should  be  in- 
creased to  eleven ;  so  as  to  give  one  for  the  chief  com- 

27 


410         SPEECH   ON    THE  INVASION    OF   CANADA. 

mand,  one  for  each  wing,  and  one  for  each  division  of 
four  thousand  men." 

It  is  entertaining  to  see  how  much  trouble  the  worthy 
adjutant  takes  to  impress  upon  the  mind  that  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  "  had  not  required  his  opinion  "  on  the 
subject  of  a  grade  higher  than  that  of  a  major-general. 
He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  he  has  "  not  deemed 
it  proper  to  touch  this  subject." 

Now,  sir,  I  think  he  has  touched  the  subject,  and 
treated  it  pretty  thoroughly  too.  For  he  has  shown, 
not  only  that  it  is  "  difficult  "  to  do  without,  but  that  it 
is  more  economical  to  have,  a  grade  higher  than  a  major- 
general.  And  this,  too,  in  an  army  of  only  thirty-five 
thousand  men.  But  when  this  bill  passes,  the  army  will 
consist  of  fifty-five  thousand.  The  result  is  then  inev- 
itable :  you  must  have,  in  such  case,  a  grade  higher  than 
a  major-general;  in  other  words,  a  lieutenant-general. 
Such,  it  cannot  be  denied,  is  the  intention  of  the  cabinet. 
As  little  can  it  be  denied  that  the  Secretary  of  State,  the 
acting  Secretary  of  War,  is  the  cabinet  candidate  for 
that  office.  So  it  has  been  distinctly  avowed  by  the 
friends  and  confidants  of  that  cabinet;  and  as  such,  I 
have  no  question,  is  known  by  every  individual  in  this 
House. 

Mr.  Speaker,  what  an  astonishing  and  alarming  state 
of  things  is  this  !  Three  men,  who  efficiently  have  had 
the  command  of  this  nation  for  many  years,  have  so 
managed  its  concerns  as  to  reduce  it,  from  an  unex- 
ampled height  of  prosperity,  to  a  state  of  great  depres- 
sion,—  not  to  say  ruin.  They  have  annihilated  its 
commerce,  and  involved  it  in  war.  And  now  the  result 
of  the  whole  matter  is,  that  they  are  about  to  raise  an 


SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION   OF   CANADA.          411 

army  of  fifty-five  thousand  men,  invest  one  of  their  own 
body  with  this  most  solemn  command,  and  he  the  man 
who  is  the  destined  candidate  for  the  President's  chair ! 
What  a  grasp  at  power  is  this !  What  is  there  in  history 
equal  to  it?  Can  any  man  doubt  what  will  be  the  result 
of  this  project  ?  No  man  can  believe  that  the  conquest 
of  Canada  will  be  effected  in  one  campaign.  It  cost  the 
British  six  years  to  acquire  it  when  it  was  far  weaker 
than  at  present.  It  cannot  be  hoped  that  we  can  ac- 
quire it  under  three  or  four  years.  And  what  then 
will  be  the  situation  of  this  army  and  our  country? 
Why  then  the  army  will  be  veteran ;  and  the  leader  a 
candidate  for  the  presidency  !  And,  whoever  is  a  can- 
didate for  the  presidency,  with  an  army  of  thirty  thou- 
sand veterans  at  his  heels,  will  not  be  likely  to  be 
troubled  with  rivals  or  to  concern  himself  about  votes. 
A  President  elected  under  such  auspices  may  be  nomi- 
nally a  President  for  years  ;  but  really,  if  he  pleases,  a 
President  for  life. 

I  know  that  all  this  will  seem  wild  and  fantastical  to 
very  many,  perhaps  to  all,  who  hear  me.  To  my  mind, 
it  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  History  is  full  of 
events  less  probable,  and  effected  by  armies  far  inferior 
to  that  which  is  proposed  to  be  raised.  So  far  from 
deeming  it  mere  fancy,  I  consider  it  absolutely  certain, 
if  this  army  be  once  raised,  organized,  and  enter  upon 
a  successful  career  of  conquest.  The  result  of  such  a 
power  as  this,  intrusted  to  a  single  individual,  in  the 
present  state  of  parties  and  passions  in  this  country,  no 
man  can  anticipate.  There  is  no  other  means  of  abso- 
lute safety  but  denying  it  altogether. 

I   cannot   forget,   Mr.   Speaker,  that  the  sphere   in 


412         SPEECH   ON   THE   INVASION   OP   CANADA. 

which, this  great  army  is  destined  to  operate  is  in  the 
neighborhood  of  that  section  of  country  where  it  is  prob- 
able, in  case  the  present  destructive  measures  be  con- 
tinued in  operation,  the  most  unanimous  opposition  will 
exist  to  a  perpetuation  of  power  in  the  present  hands,  or 
to  its  transfer  to  its  destined  successor.  I  cannot  forget 
that  it  has  been  distinctly  avowed  by  a  member  on  this 
floor,  a  gentleman  from  Virginia  too  (Mr.  Clay),  and 
one  very  likely  to  know  the  view  of  the  cabinet,  that 
"  one  object  of  this  army  was  to  put  down  opposition." 
Sir,  the  greatness  of  this  project  and  its  consequences 
overwhelm  my  mind.  I  know  very  well  to  what  oblo- 
quy I  expose  myself  by  this  development.  I  know 
that  it  is  always  an  unpardonable  sin  to  pull  the  veil 
from  the  party  deities  of  the  day,  and  that  it  is  of  a 
nature  not  to  be  forgiven  either  by  them  or  their  wor- 
shippers. I  have  not  willingly,  nor  without  long  reflec- 
tion, taken  upon  myself  this  responsibility.  But  it  has 
been  forced  upon  me  by  an  imperious  sense  of  duty.  If 
the  people  of  the  Northern  and  Eastern  States  are  des- 
tined to  be  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  to 
men  who  know  nothing  about  their  interests,  and  care 
nothing  about  them,  I  am  clear  of  the  great  transgres- 
sion. If,  in  common  with  their  countrymen,  my  children 
are  destined  to  be  slaves,  and  to  yoke  in  with  negroes, 
chained  to  the  car  of  a  Southern  master,  they,  at  least, 
shall  have  this  sweet  consciousness  as  the  consolation  of 
their  condition,  —  they  shall  be  able  to  say,  "  Our  father 
was  guiltless  of  these  chains." 


II         •  •          I 

3  120501981  0579 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


UNIVERSITY; 
SANTA 


HETDNOV0419975 


Series  9482 


IA 
D6 

0 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  L  BRARY FACILITY 


AA    000868574    5 


